The Supreme Court has rejected a State appeal seeking to limit damages for unlawful detention to a nominal sum, while also dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal for a higher award.
In a judgment delivered on 2 December 2022, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said damages for false imprisonment will normally include an element that vindicates the importance of personal liberty, except possibly in cases where the detention was purely technical or fleeting. The court dismissed both appeals, leaving the High Court’s €7,500 award in place.
The plaintiff, identified in the judgment as G.E., was detained for 26 days in August and September 2011 under detention orders that were found to be defective. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered his release after finding the first orders unlawful because they did not record required information. He was released on 26 August, then detained again under a new order containing that information. The earlier ruling also found that he should have been released at 1.15pm that day, rather than 3pm.
The State argued that the plaintiff should receive only nominal damages because, it said, he would have been lawfully detained if the authorities had known about the defects and followed the required procedures. It relied on the approach taken by the UK Supreme Court in Lumba. The plaintiff disputed that his detention would have been inevitable and argued that nominal damages would not adequately recognise the loss of liberty.
The Supreme Court’s judgment rejected the State’s principal argument. Justice Hogan said that, beyond the most technical or fleeting cases, nominal damages would fail to reflect the seriousness of unlawful detention and the constitutional obligation to vindicate the right to liberty. He said that the plaintiff’s actual loss of liberty for more than three weeks would normally warrant substantial damages.
However, the court found that the plaintiff’s conduct and credibility were relevant to the amount. The High Court had identified discrepancies in his accounts of his nationality, Nigerian contacts and residential addresses. It also accepted his evidence that he had never been in prison before and found the experience upsetting. Justice Hogan said the trial judge was entitled to take account of those credibility deficits and reduce the award.
The plaintiff’s cross-appeal argued that €7,500 was inadequate. The Supreme Court dismissed it, finding the award was restrained but not insignificant. The judgment does not increase the damages or alter the High Court award.