The Supreme Court has once again made a finding against the government. This time it’s in connection with a really interesting case of false imprisonment. R (on the application of Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019]. The unfortunate Mr Jalloh, a Liberian national was released from immigration detention and allowed to live at home under strict rules which imposed a curfew from 11.00pm to 7.00am daily. The curfew was enforced by means of a security tag and Mr Jalloh knew that there would be serious consequences for breaking it. The curfew continued for 891 days before the Secretary of State accepted that it had no power to impose a curfew.

Mr Jalloh was awarded compensation for false imprisonment and the Secretary of State appealed this decision all the way to the Supreme Court. It has now found in Mr Jalloh’s favour.

Lady Hale defined imprisonment as “being made to stay in a particular place by another person… although it was physically possible for the claimant to leave, his compliance was enforced and not voluntary.”

The Supreme Court noted the distinction under the ECHR between deprivation of liberty and restriction of physical liberty. It was clear that the curfew and tagging had not amounted to a “deprivation of liberty”. Lady Hale’s judgement confirmed that the common law tort of false imprisonment was not, and should not be, linked to the ECHR definition of deprivation of liberty. The Supreme Court opined that any such link would be a retrograde step. Mr Jalloh was indeed entitled to his compensation.

If you want to keep up with the latest news from the Supreme Court or have a go at writing case law updates yourself, check out our friends at The Student Lawyer, the number one source of free news and information created by law students for law students.