Foundations in Law 1
False imprisonment is the unlawful restriction of a person’s freedom of movement 1.
Lumba2 is a leading case as it outlines instances of false imprisonment where an
appellant is detained by the state, it becomes the Secretary of State’s responsibility
to display, on the balance of probabilities, that the detainment under the
Immigration Act 1971 Sch.3 was lawful3. Lord Dyson asserts this, ‘that he was directly
and intentionally imprisoned by the defendant, whereupon the burden shifts to the
defendant to show that there was lawful justification for doing so’4. These
procedures prevent executive abuse of power.
Lauzikas5 applies the precedent set in Lumba6, ruling there is a public law
duty to follow published policies7. Both cases refer to the unlawful imprisonment of
foreign national prisoners by the Secretary of State for the home department. In the
case of Lumba, the claimant was detained under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the
Immigration Act 19718; dictating once a decision to deport is made, the detainee
may be imprisoned under the authority of the State of a deportation order 9. Similarly
to Lauzikas who successfully appealed his detention in the First-Tier Tribunal, but
later voluntarily repatriated due to imposed restrictions; Lumba’s repatriation refusal
was used by the defence to justify his detainment, claiming that his refusal inferred
an absconding made the detainment lawful.
Mr Fordham explains that ‘the onus is on the Secretary of State to satisfy the
court that there was lawful justification for detention’. 10 Referring to the ‘what
1 Jonathan Law, Oxford Dictionary of Law, [2015] (8 ed) p. 254-255
2 R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] UKSC 12; [2012]
1 AC 245
3 Essential cases: Tort Law Craig Purshouse
4 R(on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011]UKSC 12 1;
[2012] AC 245 [65] (Lord Dyson SCJ)
5 R. (on the application of Lauzikas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1045
(Admin); [2018] 4 All E.R. 141; [2018] A.C.D. 64
6 R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] UKSC 12; [2012]
1 AC 245
7 R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] UKSC 12; [169]
8 Immigration Act 1971 c.77 Schedule 3 SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO DEPORTATIONS
9 Queen's Bench Division 30 March 2017 Case Analysis
10 R. (on the application of Lauzikas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC
1045 (Admin); [2018] 4 All E.R. 141; [2018] A.C.D. 64 [17]
False imprisonment is the unlawful restriction of a person’s freedom of movement 1.
Lumba2 is a leading case as it outlines instances of false imprisonment where an
appellant is detained by the state, it becomes the Secretary of State’s responsibility
to display, on the balance of probabilities, that the detainment under the
Immigration Act 1971 Sch.3 was lawful3. Lord Dyson asserts this, ‘that he was directly
and intentionally imprisoned by the defendant, whereupon the burden shifts to the
defendant to show that there was lawful justification for doing so’4. These
procedures prevent executive abuse of power.
Lauzikas5 applies the precedent set in Lumba6, ruling there is a public law
duty to follow published policies7. Both cases refer to the unlawful imprisonment of
foreign national prisoners by the Secretary of State for the home department. In the
case of Lumba, the claimant was detained under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the
Immigration Act 19718; dictating once a decision to deport is made, the detainee
may be imprisoned under the authority of the State of a deportation order 9. Similarly
to Lauzikas who successfully appealed his detention in the First-Tier Tribunal, but
later voluntarily repatriated due to imposed restrictions; Lumba’s repatriation refusal
was used by the defence to justify his detainment, claiming that his refusal inferred
an absconding made the detainment lawful.
Mr Fordham explains that ‘the onus is on the Secretary of State to satisfy the
court that there was lawful justification for detention’. 10 Referring to the ‘what
1 Jonathan Law, Oxford Dictionary of Law, [2015] (8 ed) p. 254-255
2 R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] UKSC 12; [2012]
1 AC 245
3 Essential cases: Tort Law Craig Purshouse
4 R(on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011]UKSC 12 1;
[2012] AC 245 [65] (Lord Dyson SCJ)
5 R. (on the application of Lauzikas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1045
(Admin); [2018] 4 All E.R. 141; [2018] A.C.D. 64
6 R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] UKSC 12; [2012]
1 AC 245
7 R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] UKSC 12; [169]
8 Immigration Act 1971 c.77 Schedule 3 SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO DEPORTATIONS
9 Queen's Bench Division 30 March 2017 Case Analysis
10 R. (on the application of Lauzikas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC
1045 (Admin); [2018] 4 All E.R. 141; [2018] A.C.D. 64 [17]
