ID & Ors v The Home Office

ID & Ors v The Home Office

Immigration officers are not immune from actions for damages for false imprisonment where their decision to detain is unlawful, including where they fail to follow relevant policy or international obligations. The right to liberty applies to all, and the courts will scrutinise executive detention closely. Claims for damages for false imprisonment and under ECHR Articles 2, 3, and 5 are viable where the detention is shown to be unlawful or disproportionate. The proper forum for such claims is the county court, not exclusively the Administrative Court.

Parties
Claimants/appellants: ID & Others; Defendants/respondents: The Home Office; Interveners: Bail for Immigration Detainees and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (Interveners)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, remitted for further hearing and case management.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Administrative Detention, Damages, Discrimination, Judicial Review, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights, Children's Rights
Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Tort Law False Imprisonment Administrative Detention Damages Discrimination +4 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 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ID & Others

Claimants/appellants

The Home Office

Defendants/respondents

Bail for Immigration Detainees and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (Interveners)

Interveners

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether immigration officers are immune from damages for false imprisonment arising from unlawful detention under the Immigration Act 1971
  2. 2 Whether claims for damages for false imprisonment and under ECHR Articles 2, 3, 5, and 8 are viable in the context of administrative immigration detention
  3. 3 Whether the Home Office’s internal policies and international obligations (including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) affect the lawfulness of detention

Ratio Decidendi

Immigration officers are not immune from actions for damages for false imprisonment where their decision to detain is unlawful, including where they fail to follow relevant policy or international obligations. The right to liberty applies to all, and the courts will scrutinise executive detention closely. Claims for damages for false imprisonment and under ECHR Articles 2, 3, and 5 are viable where the detention is shown to be unlawful or disproportionate. The proper forum for such claims is the county court, not exclusively the Administrative Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, remitted for further hearing and case management.

Orders

  • Set aside the order extinguishing claims for damages for false imprisonment and/or compensation under ECHR Article 5(5) for detention after Oakington.
  • Claims for compensation under ECHR Article 2 (Yarl’s Wood) and Article 3 (Yarl’s Wood and Harmondsworth) reinstated for trial.