The Court of Appeal has ruled that a claimant in a false imprisonment case must remain anonymous in its approved judgment, and ordered that he receive 90% of the costs of the appeal.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Murray on 10 November 2021, addressed costs and anonymity after the court had issued an unapproved judgment in April. The underlying appeal concerned the defendants’ argument that a person unlawfully detained could not recover compensatory damages if they would have been lawfully detained in any event. The court had rejected that argument.
The claimant had also brought a cross appeal challenging the High Court’s assessment of damages. He argued that the trial judge wrongly took account of her view that he had given false evidence. The Court of Appeal rejected that challenge, holding that credibility was relevant to assessing the effect of detention on the claimant and damages, including any award reflecting reputational harm or stigma.
In the costs ruling, the court accepted that the claimant’s unsuccessful cross appeal should reduce his costs recovery. But it said the cross appeal formed only a small part of the submissions and was closely connected to the defendants’ appeal. It therefore limited the reduction to 10% and awarded the claimant 90% of the appeal costs.
The court separately considered whether the claimant should be named. The State opposed anonymisation, arguing that the case did not directly concern an application for international protection and that public hearings are constitutionally important. The claimant’s solicitors said he did not consent to disclosure of his identity.
The court found that section 26 of the International Protection Act 2015 applied. It said the appeal judgment referred repeatedly to the claimant’s asylum application, which featured in the evidence and credibility issues and was central to explaining the appeal. Removing those references would prevent a complete and coherent account of the legal and factual basis for the court’s conclusions.
The court concluded that keeping the claimant’s name out of the judgment was the less intrusive way to comply with the law while preserving public understanding of the case. Justices Whelan and Power agreed with the judgment and proposed orders.