![AC-2025-LON-001576 - [2025] EWHC 2592 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Damages for false imprisonment
Damages for false imprisonment
In the event that the recall decision is quashed, the Claimant seeks damages for false imprisonment. The Defendant responds that there is no such entitlement; any further imprisonment on recall is lawful pursuant to the original sentence of imprisonment.
This issue was debated before HHJ Gore in Calder but not determined. I have been briefly referred to R(Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 and mention was made of R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No. 2) [1999] 1 WLR 103. However, there appears to be no concluded decision on the issue, and the issues were not properly developed, either on paper or orally. In my view, if this claim is pursued it will require further and fuller argument before determination.
- Heading
- The factual background
- Legal Background – Statutory Provisions
- Legal Background – Caselaw
- Ground 4 – Unlawfulness of the Recall Decision
- Release on Licence
- Conclusions – Issue 1
- Breach of Conditions and the Calder Test
- Conclusions – Issue 2
- The reasons for recalling the Claimant
- Conclusions – Issue 3
- Rationality of the Decision to Recall
- Conclusions – Limb 1 and Condition 5(i)
- Limb 2: The Necessity of Recall
- Of the police and/or prison service in the Republic of Ireland
- Conclusions: Ground 4
- Relief
- Damages for false imprisonment
- Conclusions