Dear Colleagues,

Following the its decision in Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2011] UKSC 12 (which Neil Foster circulated on the list and generated some discussion) the UK Supreme Court has today decided a similar case in

Shepherd Masimba Kambadzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 23

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0022_Judgment.pdf. The Appellant had been detained pending the making of a deportation order, but the Secretary of State had not complied with the policy on frequency of review of that detention. However, had such reviews taken place, there would throughout that period have been substantive justification for his continued detention. The Appellant challenged the lawfulness of his detention and brought a claim for false imprisonment.

The majority (Lords Hope and Kerr and Lady Hale) allow the appeal and holds that the Secretary of State is liable, albeit likely only for nominal damages. The minority (Lord Brown giving an opinion, Lord Rodger agreeing), would draw a distinction between a substantive and procedural error. The case is worth reading for some clarification of the circumstances in which a claim in false imprisonment will lie.

Best wishes,

James


--
James Lee
Lecturer and Director of Careers
Academic Fellow of the Inner Temple
Birmingham Law School
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 2TT, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)121 414 3629
E-mail: j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk