Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.
Watkins v. Home Office & Ors
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff, a life-sentence prisoner, alleged that three prison officers (“Officer 1,” “Officer 2,” and “Officer 3”) at two separate prisons deliberately opened or read his legally privileged mail between 1998 and 2000. This conduct was contrary to Prison Rules then in force (Rule 37A of the Prison Rules 1964 and later Rule 39 of the Prison Rules 1999), which safeguard confidential correspondence with courts and legal advisers. Plaintiff sued the Home Office (“Defendant”) and fourteen officers for the tort of misfeasance in public office.
At first instance Judge [Last Name] found that many letters had been wrongly interfered with but concluded that only the three named officers had acted in bad faith. Because Plaintiff proved no financial loss or recognised physical/psychiatric injury (“material damage”), the judge dismissed all claims, holding that misfeasance in public office is not actionable per se.
The Court of Appeal reversed, declaring that where a defendant’s misfeasance violates a claimant’s “constitutional right” (here, unimpeded access to courts and confidential legal advice) no proof of damage is required. It awarded nominal damages (£5 against each officer) and remitted the case for possible exemplary damages. Defendant appealed to the House of Lords.
Legal Issues Presented
- Is the tort of misfeasance in public office actionable without proof of material damage?
- If actionable per se in some circumstances, does interference with a claimant’s constitutional right (e.g., access to the courts) constitute such a circumstance?
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff’s Arguments
- Misfeasance in public office should be treated as actionable per se, or at least where a constitutional right is infringed.
- Anxiety, distress, and affront to dignity should suffice as damage; alternatively, nominal and exemplary damages should be available even without material loss.
- Policy demands a civil remedy to deter deliberate, bad-faith abuse of public power.
Defendant’s Arguments
- Proof of material damage is an essential element of the tort, as consistently recognised for over 300 years.
- Other public-law or disciplinary avenues (judicial review, criminal prosecution, internal discipline) adequately address bad-faith conduct that causes no compensable loss.
- The Court of Appeal’s “constitutional right” exception is uncertain, unprincipled, and would unduly expand exemplary-damage exposure.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1 | Defines elements of misfeasance, including intent and requirement of damage | Court relied on it to affirm that damage is ordinarily required |
| Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2002] 2 AC 122 | Exemplary damages available for misfeasance | Confirmed exemplary damages possible once tort is proved, not where tort fails for lack of damage |
| Davis v Bromley Corporation [1908] 1 KB 170 | Historical view questioning existence of the tort | Noted but distinguished; modern law recognises tort |
| Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] AC 158 | Privy Council description of tort as “well-established” | Used to show long-standing recognition of the tort |
| Turner v Sterling (1671) 2 Vent 25 | Early action on the case requiring damage | Cited as historical authority that damage is essential |
| Ashby v White (1703) 1 Sm LC | Interference with right to vote; sometimes viewed as actionable without damage | House held it unreliable for dispensing with damage in misfeasance claims |
| Whitelegg v Richards (1823) 2 B & C 45 | Damage as gist of action | Supports requirement of damage |
| Henly v Lyme Corporation (1828) 2 Bing 91 | Public officer liability requires injury to claimant | Reinforced damage prerequisite |
| Rogers v Rajendro Dutt (1860) 13 Moo PC 209 | Need for damages; malice insufficient alone | Illustrative precedent |
| Brasyer v Maclean (1875) LR 6 PC 398 | Sheriff’s misfeasance actionable where arrest caused harm | Cited to show damage requirement |
| Farrington v Thomson [1959] VR 286 | Misfeasance requires damage | Quoted with approval |
| Tampion v Anderson [1973] VR 715 | Affirmed need for damage | Relied upon for consistency |
| Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 69 ALJR 527 | High Court of Australia: damage essential | Cited as overseas authority |
| Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 332 | New Zealand Court of Appeal analysis of tort elements | Consistent with damage requirement |
| Rawlinson v Rice [1997] 2 NZLR 651 | Followed Garrett | Same point |
| Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse [2003] 3 SCR 263 | Supreme Court of Canada: actionable where visible/psychological injury proved | Cited to show comparative approach |
| R v Secretary of State ex p Leech [1994] QB 198 | Right of access to courts described as constitutional | Basis of Court of Appeal’s “constitutional right” reasoning—rejected by House |
| R v Secretary of State ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539 | Use of term “constitutional right” | Cited in discussion of rights terminology |
| R v Secretary of State ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 | Principle of legality; fundamental rights | Illustrated interpretative context |
| R (Daly) v Secretary of State [2001] 2 AC 532 | Right to confidential legal correspondence | Referenced in rights analysis |
| R v Lord Chancellor ex p Witham [1998] QB 575 | Access to courts fundamental | Cited on “constitutional rights” |
| Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2005] QB 73 | Misconduct in public office offence | Mentioned as alternative sanction |
| BB v United Kingdom (2004) 39 EHRR 635 | Strasbourg approach to non-pecuniary loss | Used to question exemplary damages rationale |
| Black v North British Railway Co 1908 SC 444 | Scottish approach: no exemplary damages | Compared jurisdictions |
| Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1 | Prisoner’s access to courts | Background on mail rules |
| Silver v United Kingdom (1983) 5 EHRR 347 | Article 8 correspondence rights | Historical context |
| Campbell v United Kingdom (1992) 15 EHRR 137 | Further development of prisoners’ correspondence rights | Historical context |
| Leech v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 89 | Scottish case on legal correspondence | Historical context |
| R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison ex p Hague [1992] 1 AC 58 | Prison Rules do not create private law rights | Applied to deny direct statutory cause |
| Roncarelli v Duplessis [1959] SCR 121 | Classic Canadian misfeasance; targeted malice | Used in policy discussion |
| Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers [1997] AC 254 | Causation principles for intentional torts | Referenced in analysis |
| Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 | Requirement of loss in tort | Explained intentional tort differences |
| D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373 | Judicial development of tort vs Convention | Cited in policy reasoning |
| Mortensen v Peters (1906) 8 F (J) 93 | Principle of legality in statutory interpretation | Mentioned in rights terminology section |
| Nairn v University of St Andrews [1909] AC 147 | Need for clear words to alter constitutional rights | Used in discussion of “constitutional” terminology |
| R (Greenfield) v Secretary of State [2005] 1 WLR 673 | Damages under Human Rights Act | Compared with exemplary damages |
| Wainwright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406 | Common law vs Convention remedies | Context for alternative actions |
| Davy v Spelthorne Borough Council [1984] AC 262 | Tort/public-law distinctions | Cited in procedural discussion |
| Davidson v Scottish Ministers [2005] UKHL 74 | Private vs public law remedies in Scotland | Cited in comparative discussion |
| A v Secretary of State (No 2) [2005] 3 WLR 1249 | Common-law development readiness | Used to caution against change without full review |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The House analysed over three centuries of authority and found a “remarkably consistent” rule that material damage is an essential element of the tort. Historical cases originating in actions on the case uniformly assumed or required proof of loss. Even modern comparative jurisprudence (Australia, Canada, New Zealand) treats damage as indispensable.
The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s creation of a “constitutional right” exception for four principal reasons:
- The distinction lacks precedent and would generate uncertainty over which rights qualify as “constitutional.”
- Existing alternative remedies (judicial review, disciplinary proceedings, criminal charges, and—post-1998—Human Rights Act claims) already address non-damaging abuses.
- The Human Rights Act indicates that Parliament envisaged Convention mechanisms, not tort expansion, for vindicating core rights.
- Making the tort actionable per se would transform it into an instrument of punishment via exemplary damages, contrary to policy discouraging such awards.
Accordingly, the House held that neither targeted malice nor breach of a fundamental right dispenses with the need to prove material damage. Without such damage, Plaintiff’s cause of action was incomplete.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The order of the Court of Appeal was set aside (save as to costs), and the trial judge’s dismissal of the claims was restored.
Implications: Claimants alleging misfeasance in public office must prove financial loss or recognised physical/psychiatric injury. Emotional distress, indignation, or breach of “constitutional” rights alone are insufficient. The decision curtails expansion of exemplary-damage claims and signals that redress for non-damaging rights-violations should be sought through public-law mechanisms or under the Human Rights Act rather than by extending private-law torts.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.

Comments