LL v The Lord Chancellor

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns an individual ("Appellant") who was wrongfully committed to prison for contempt of court and subsequently sought a declaration and damages. The underlying family proceedings related to arrangements for a child ("M"), whose father ("Appellant") and mother ("Appellee") were involved in custody and divorce disputes. The Appellant failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring the return of M from Singapore to the UK, leading to a committal order for contempt by a Family Division judge ("Judge").

The Appellant challenged the committal order and sentence, which was quashed by the Court of Appeal on grounds including apparent judicial bias and procedural irregularities. The Appellant then brought a claim for damages against the Lord Chancellor, alleging unlawful detention contrary to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). The claim was dismissed by the High Court, and the Appellant appealed that decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the errors made by the Family Division judge in the committal proceedings amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" sufficient to render the Appellant's detention unlawful under Article 5 of the ECHR.
2. Whether the Lord Chancellor is liable in damages under section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the Appellant's unlawful detention.
3. Whether the threshold for liability requires an exceptional level of irregularity or bad faith.
4. The proper application of procedural safeguards in contempt proceedings, including judicial impartiality and the right of the detained person to be informed of their rights and to make submissions on mitigation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The errors by the Family Division judge collectively amounted to "gross and obvious irregularity".
• The judge improperly included a recital in the order that was not a binding injunction, creating confusion and leading to wrongful committal.
• The judge should have recused herself due to apparent bias or predetermination.
• The judge failed to warn the Appellant that he was not obliged to give evidence and improperly proceeded to cross-examination without allowing evidence-in-chief.
• The judge conflated non-compliance with deliberate breach without proper proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Appellant was denied an opportunity to make submissions in mitigation before sentencing.
• The cumulative effect of these errors rendered the detention unlawful, entitling the Appellant to damages.

Respondent's Arguments (Lord Chancellor)

• The errors, although serious, did not reach the high threshold of "gross and obvious irregularity".
• The judge acted in good faith and the procedural errors were inadvertent.
• The Appellant’s detention was lawful under the applicable provisions of Article 5 of the ECHR.
• The proper remedy for the Appellant was a successful appeal, which had already been granted.
• The recital in the order was not a binding injunction and the judge’s approach did not amount to a flagrant denial of justice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a detailed review of the factual background, procedural history, and relevant legal principles under both domestic law and the ECHR. It considered the threshold for liability under Article 5(1) and the Human Rights Act 1998, emphasizing that liability for unlawful detention requires a "gross and obvious irregularity" or similarly serious breach.

The court examined the specific errors made by the Family Division judge, including the improper inclusion of a non-binding recital in the court order, failure to recuse despite apparent bias, procedural failings in the committal hearing (not warning the Appellant of his right not to give evidence and improper cross-examination), conflating non-compliance with deliberate breach without proper proof, and denying the Appellant an opportunity to make submissions in mitigation before sentencing.

While acknowledging the judge’s good faith and the difficult context of family law proceedings, the court found that the cumulative effect of these errors crossed the high threshold of "gross and obvious irregularity". It rejected the lower court’s view that these errors were serious but insufficient to engage liability.

The court also addressed prior authorities, noting that most judicial errors do not give rise to liability and that judicial immunity remains intact for good faith errors. However, in this exceptional case, the irregularities were sufficiently serious to render the detention unlawful and justify damages against the Lord Chancellor.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal, holding that the errors made by the Family Division judge collectively amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" under Article 5 of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. Consequently, the Appellant’s detention was unlawful, and the Lord Chancellor is liable for damages.

The decision emphasizes the stringent threshold required to establish liability for unlawful detention resulting from judicial error, reaffirming judicial immunity for good faith acts. However, it clarifies that where serious procedural irregularities cumulatively affect the lawfulness of detention, compensation may be warranted. The ruling is confined to the exceptional facts of this case and explicitly does not undermine the principle of judicial immunity in ordinary circumstances.