England and Wales Case Law

MXV, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Home Department

The Secretary of State did not breach Article 3 ECHR operational or systems duties, as all reasonable steps were taken to facilitate clinical assessment and treatment for HIV in detention. Detention was lawful under Hardial Singh principles and Article 5 ECHR until 1 June 2024, but became unlawful thereafter due to lack of realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period following relisting of the appeal. The Secretary of State did not fail to comply with published policies or commit public law errors.

Source excerpt

• Immigration detention
• Article 3 echr
• Article 5 echr
• Hardial singh principles
• Adults at risk policy
• Hiv treatment in detention

Read case analysis

Mehul Choksi v The Government of India & Ors

Security for costs was ordered because the claimant is resident abroad, there is a real risk of non-enforcement of costs orders, the merits do not demonstrate a high probability of success, and there is insufficient evidence that the claim would be stifled by the order.

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• State immunity
• Jurisdiction
• Forum non conveniens
• False imprisonment
• Conspiracy

Read case analysis

Hall, R. v

Hall, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 556 (24 April 2026)

The Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal by Salvadore Leroy Hall, finding 16 years’ imprisonment for violent false imprisonment, assault and firearms offences was not manifestly excessive.

• Sentencing
• False imprisonment
• Grievous bodily harm
• Firearms offences
• Totality principle
• False-imprisonment

Read case analysis

Rochester, R. v

Rochester, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 557 (24 April 2026)

The Court of Appeal Criminal Division refused leave to appeal and an extension of time. It held there were no arguable grounds and the trial in the defendant’s absence was properly conducted.

• False imprisonment
• Grievous bodily harm with intent
• Trial in absence of defendant
• Judicial bias
• Jury composition
• Legal representation

Read case analysis

R v Salvadore Leroy Hall

The Court of Appeal upheld a 16-year sentence for false imprisonment, grievous bodily harm and firearms offences, finding no error in the judge’s totality assessment.

• Sentencing
• False imprisonment
• Grievous bodily harm
• Firearms offences
• Totality principle
• Sentencing-appeal

Read case analysis

R v Nathan Rochester

The Court of Appeal Criminal Division refused leave to appeal and refused an extension of time in a conviction appeal against false imprisonment and grievous bodily harm with intent.

• False imprisonment
• Grievous bodily harm with intent
• Trial in absence of defendant
• Jury bias
• Legal representation
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

Metcalf v R.

Metcalf v R. [2026] EWCA Crim 412 (01 April 2026)

The Court of Appeal dismissed Lee Metcalf’s conviction appeal, holding that fresh psychiatric evidence did not show he was unfit for interview or trial, and did not make the conviction unsafe.

• Rape
• False imprisonment
• Mental health in criminal proceedings
• Admissibility of evidence
• Police and criminal evidence act
• Appropriate adult

Read case analysis

Lee Metcalf v R

The Court of Appeal dismissed Lee Metcalf’s conviction appeal, holding he was fit to be interviewed, the interview was admissible, and no intermediary was required.

• Rape
• False imprisonment
• Fitness to be interviewed
• Admission of fresh evidence
• Appropriate adult
• Intermediary

Read case analysis

FXS (Through His Father And Litigation Friend JLM) v Mulberry Bush Organisation Ltd

FXS (Through His Father And Litigation Friend JLM) v Mulberry Bush Organisation Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 415 (01 April 2026)

The Court of Appeal upheld battery findings over face-down restraints at a special school, but allowed the appeal on false imprisonment and quashed aggravated damages.

• Battery
• False imprisonment
• Use of force in schools
• Restraint of children
• Damages
• Statutory interpretation

Read case analysis

FXS v Mulberry Bush Organisation Limited

Court of Appeal case on restraint in a special school: face-down restraint held to be battery, towel-based room confinement held not to be false imprisonment.

• Battery
• False imprisonment
• Negligence
• Use of force in schools
• Damages
• False-imprisonment

Read case analysis