ID & Ors v The Home Office [2005] EWCA Civ 38 (27 January 2005)

ID & Ors v The Home Office [2005] EWCA Civ 38 (27 January 2005)

The Court held that the claimants' claims for damages for false imprisonment and under ECHR Articles 2, 3, 5, and 8 could not proceed where the detentions were authorised under statutory powers and not shown to be unlawful under domestic law or in breach of the ECHR. Immigration officers do not have general immunity for unlawful acts, but where detention is within statutory authority and policy, no cause of action for damages arises. The proper remedy for unlawful administrative detention is judicial review, not a private law claim for damages, unless the detention is shown to be ultra vires or in bad faith.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 38
Parties
Claimants/appellants: ID & Others; Defendants/respondents: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Detention of Immigrants, Discrimination, Damages, Article 5 ECHR, Administrative Law
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Tort Law False Imprisonment Detention of Immigrants Discrimination Damages Article 5 ECHR +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ID & Others

Claimants/appellants

The Home Office

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' detention by immigration officers was unlawful and actionable in damages for false imprisonment
  2. 2 Whether claims under ECHR Articles 2, 3, 5, and 8 are viable
  3. 3 Whether immigration officers have immunity for acts causing loss of liberty under statutory powers

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the claimants' claims for damages for false imprisonment and under ECHR Articles 2, 3, 5, and 8 could not proceed where the detentions were authorised under statutory powers and not shown to be unlawful under domestic law or in breach of the ECHR. Immigration officers do not have general immunity for unlawful acts, but where detention is within statutory authority and policy, no cause of action for damages arises. The proper remedy for unlawful administrative detention is judicial review, not a private law claim for damages, unless the detention is shown to be ultra vires or in bad faith.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claims for damages for false imprisonment and under ECHR Articles 2, 3, 5, and 8 struck out
  • Remaining claims under ECHR Article 14, section 19B of the Race Relations Act, and for negligence to proceed to trial in the county court