Governor of Her Majesty Prison Brockhill Ex Parte Evans, R v.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12 January 1996 the Plaintiff was sentenced at The Crown Court to two years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, time spent in custody before trial had to be deducted when fixing the conditional release date. That calculation was the statutory responsibility of the prison governor, here the Defendant.

Relying on a line of earlier Divisional Court decisions, the Defendant fixed the release date at 18 November 1996. Contending that the correct date was 17 September 1996, the Plaintiff:

• 6 September 1996 – applied for a writ of habeas corpus.
• 16 October 1996 – sought judicial review and damages for false imprisonment.

On 15 November 1996 the Divisional Court held that the lawful release date had always been 17 September 1996 and ordered the Plaintiff’s immediate release (Plaintiff v. Defendant [1997] QB 443). A subsequent damages claim was dismissed by Judge Collins, who nevertheless assessed general damages at £2,000. The Court of Appeal, by majority, reversed on liability and increased damages to £5,000 ([1999] QB 1043). The Defendant appealed to the House of Lords, which delivered judgment on 27 July 2000.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a prison governor is liable in the tort of false imprisonment when a prisoner is detained beyond the lawful release date in reliance on judicial authorities that are subsequently overruled.
2. Whether English courts should embrace a doctrine of prospective overruling so as to shield officials from civil liability in such circumstances.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in increasing the general damages award from £2,000 to £5,000.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant was bound to follow existing Divisional Court authority; acting otherwise would breach the constitutional separation of powers.
• Detention pursuant to what was then accepted as “the law” constituted lawful justification; therefore no tort of false imprisonment arose.
• Introducing liability would be unfair to officials who faithfully obey judicial precedent; any change in law should operate only prospectively.
• Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not compel compensation where detention accords with prevailing judicial interpretation.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• False imprisonment is a tort of strict liability; once detention is adjudged unlawful, liability follows irrespective of good faith.
• The declaratory theory means the statute has always borne its true meaning; past judicial error cannot legalise continued detention.
• Article 5(5) of the Convention guarantees an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention.
• Denying damages would leave the victim without remedy while sheltering the State from the consequences of its own mistake.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Five Law Lords – Judges Slynn, Browne-Wilkinson, Steyn, Hope and Hobhouse – delivered concurring speeches.

Strict liability of false imprisonment. All judges accepted that the tort requires no proof of fault; detention must be justified by law. Once the Divisional Court declared that the lawful release date was 17 September 1996, any subsequent custody was ipso facto unlawful.

No valid justification. The Defendant could not rely on the sentencing order, which contained no release date. Section 67 placed the calculation duty squarely on the governor; mistaken judicial guidance did not transform unlawful detention into lawful custody.

Rejection of “good-faith” defence. Precedents such as Eleko and Boddington were invoked to affirm that executive belief in legality is irrelevant; liberty can be curtailed only if objectively lawful.

Prospective overruling declined. Although academic and comparative arguments for limiting the retrospectivity of judicial change were canvassed, the House held this was not an appropriate occasion to introduce such a doctrine. Liberty cases, they said, exemplify why full retrospective effect is necessary.

Convention compatibility. Judges Steyn and Hope analysed Article 5 ECHR, concluding that unlawful detention under domestic law necessarily breached the Convention, which in turn mandated compensation.

Damages assessment. The Court upheld the increased award of £5,000. Fifty-nine days of unlawful custody was “substantial”; the figure lay well within the discretionary range and provided guidance for future cases.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal: the Defendant is liable for 59 days of false imprisonment and must pay £5,000 in general damages.

Implications: The ruling confirms that prison governors – and by extension the State – bear strict liability for unlawful detention even when acting on judicial precedent later overturned. The House declined to create a doctrine of prospective overruling, thereby reinforcing the declaratory nature of judicial decisions and the robust protection accorded to personal liberty.