Walumba Lumba (Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12

Court: UK Supreme Court

Facts: Between April 2006 and September 2008, the Home Office had a published policy favoring the release of foreign national prisoners awaiting deportation, with detention justified only in specific cases. However, the Home Office applied an unpublished, more restrictive policy that effectively acted as a near blanket ban on release. Individuals detained under this unpublished policy challenged their detention, arguing it was unlawful.

Issue: Whether the application of an unpublished, restrictive policy contrary to the published policy constituted unlawful detention and whether the Secretary of State was liable for false imprisonment.

Held: The Supreme Court held that applying an unpublished policy contrary to the published one was unlawful. The Court underscored that government actions must align with publicly stated policies and that individuals have the right to be informed of the applicable policies. The Secretary of State was found liable for false imprisonment, but nominal damages were deemed sufficient if no actual loss was suffered by the claimants.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Dyson emphasized that the right to have one’s case considered under a lawful policy includes the right to be aware of that policy. The burden of proof in false imprisonment cases rests on the claimants to prove detention, shifting the burden to the Secretary of State to justify the lawfulness of detention. He noted that if detention was tainted by a public law error, the Secretary of State could not rectify this by asserting a hypothetical lawful decision.

💡Leveluplaw: Government actions must be transparent and align with publicly stated policies. The rule of law requires that individuals be informed of the applicable policies, and deviations from these policies can lead to liability for false imprisonment. Even if no tangible harm results, the legal focus is on ensuring adherence to lawful procedures and transparency.