Date: Wed, 29 March 2006 11:28:15

From: Robert Stevens

Subject: Rights in The House of Lords

The House of Lords have overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal and held that a prisoner cannot bring a claim for damages based upon 'misfeasance in a public office' unless he has consequential loss.

The court refused to follow Holt CJ in Ashby v White, where the denial of a right to vote was actionable in damages without proof of consequential loss.

I wonder if the case was argued correctly. We all of us have a liberty to correspond with our lawyer. If someone to whom the letter is not addressed opens my correspondence surely they commit a tort, regardless of whether they are the holder of a public office? I have a right not to have my letters opened. Does it matter in my claim for damages that I have no consequential loss? Of course, prison officers are given a statutory privilege under the Prison Rules to open a prisoner's letters, but this privilege is not absolute and did not cover the bad faith opening of letters with a legal adviser in the circumstances of Watkins.

A depressing failure to take rights seriously in my opinion. (Compare Lord Bingham at [9] with Holt CJ in Ashby v White (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938, 955, 92 ER 126, 137.)

Robert Stevens
Barrister
University of Oxford

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>