False imprisonment is a cornerstone tort in the protection of personal liberty within English law. It serves as a vital check on the powers of both public authorities and private individuals. At its core, it ensures that no one is unlawfully deprived of their freedom of movement. This article offers a comprehensive overview of false imprisonment in the UK, from its legal definition and essential elements to notable case law, available defences, and modern-day controversies.
What Is False Imprisonment?
False imprisonment is the unlawful and intentional (or reckless) restraint of a person’s freedom of movement from a particular place. It is a strict liability tort, meaning that actual damage or loss need not be proved by the claimant. It is also recognised as a crime in certain contexts.
It differs from related torts such as assault or battery in that the harm is not physical but the denial of liberty itself. False imprisonment is actionable per se, meaning the claimant need not show they were aware of their detention or suffered any quantifiable loss.
Elements of the Tort
1. Complete Deprivation of Liberty
The claimant must be completely restrained. Partial obstruction or inconvenience is insufficient. This was clearly articulated in Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742, where the court held that being prevented from passing in one direction, while free to go another way, was not false imprisonment.
2. Absence of Lawful Justification
The detention must be unlawful. If there is legal authority—such as a statutory power of arrest—then false imprisonment does not arise. The key question is whether the defendant had lawful justification at the time of the restraint.
3. Intention or Recklessness
While malicious intent is not necessary, the act must be intentional or carried out with reckless disregard. The tort does not require proof that the defendant knew the imprisonment was unlawful.
Awareness of Detention
In Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd [1920] 122 LT 44, the claimant was detained without his knowledge. The court held that awareness was not essential for the tort to be actionable. This aspect underscores the principle that liberty is protected even where the individual is not conscious of its infringement.
Key Cases
- Bird v Jones (1845): Only partial obstruction. Not sufficient for false imprisonment.
- Meering v Grahame-White Aviation (1920): Claimant need not be aware of the imprisonment.
- Walker v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWCA Civ 897: Blocking a doorway, even momentarily, constituted false imprisonment.
- R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No 2) [2001] 2 AC 19: Prisoner unlawfully detained for longer than lawful sentence. Even unintentional overdetention amounted to false imprisonment.
False Imprisonment and the Police
Much litigation on false imprisonment arises from police encounters. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), officers must meet clear legal standards for stop and search, arrest, and detention.
If a person is arrested without reasonable suspicion, or if proper procedure is not followed, the detention may amount to false imprisonment. In Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary, the claimant succeeded in a claim after being arrested without legal basis.
Damages
Because the tort is actionable per se, damages are available even where no actual harm is shown. Courts may award:
- Nominal Damages to acknowledge the wrong.
- Compensatory Damages for distress, lost time, reputational harm.
- Aggravated Damages where the conduct was high-handed or oppressive.
- Exemplary (Punitive) Damages in rare cases involving abuse of power or deliberate wrongdoing.
Lawful Defences
- Certain situations allow deprivation of liberty without incurring liability:
- Lawful Arrest or Detention authorised by statute or warrant.
- Consent if the individual voluntarily agreed to the confinement.
- Citizen’s Arrest permissible in limited circumstances under the Criminal Law Act 1967.
- Necessity including emergency situations, such as preventing harm.
- Mental Health and Safeguarding Powers where detention is sanctioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 or safeguarding regulations.
False Imprisonment and Human Rights
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, protecting the right to liberty. Courts must interpret domestic law consistently with Article 5.
In Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, the House of Lords upheld police “kettling” as lawful under Article 5, provided the measures were proportionate, necessary, and time-limited. This case illustrates how common law torts and human rights law intersect.
Modern-Day Contexts and Challenges
1. Retail Detention
Store security staff detaining suspected shoplifters must have reasonable grounds and act swiftly to investigate or hand the matter over to the police.
2. Crowd Control and Protests
“Containment” tactics raise questions about proportionality and justification. Cases following large-scale protests continue to shape the boundaries of lawful public order policing.
3. Mental Health and Care Settings
False imprisonment claims arise in care homes and hospitals where individuals are deprived of liberty without proper legal authority. The introduction of the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) aims to streamline safeguards for vulnerable individuals, replacing the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
4. Immigration Detention
Immigration law presents complex questions, especially concerning prolonged detention without charge. The balance between border control and individual liberty is constantly tested.
Practical Considerations
For potential claimants:
- Record the time and circumstances of detention.
- Seek legal advice promptly.
- For authorities:
- Keep accurate records of arrest and detention.
- Ensure procedures are lawful and proportionate.
False imprisonment is a vital mechanism for protecting individual freedom and upholding the rule of law. While society must permit some curtailment of liberty in the public interest, any deprivation must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. With evolving societal challenges, from protest policing to mental health law, the law on false imprisonment continues to play a key role in maintaining the delicate balance between authority and liberty.
Legal vigilance, procedural discipline, and a firm grasp of rights are essentia for both individuals and institutions to ensure that this ancient tort continues to serve justice in a modern context.