The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by State defendants seeking to reduce a man’s €7,500 award for false imprisonment to nominal damages. It held that Irish law does not bar compensatory damages simply because the person might have been detained lawfully in different circumstances.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Murray on 16 April 2021, concerned a man whose detention in 2011 had previously been found unlawful because the warrants lacked required information. The Supreme Court ordered his release on 26 August 2011. He was released at 3pm, although a later High Court inquiry found he should have been released at 1.15pm. That court found the delay unlawful but inadvertent. A new detention order was then issued, and the man remained in detention until 22 September.
In a separate damages action, the trial judge found the man had been falsely imprisoned for 26 days and awarded €7,500 in compensatory damages, taking account of his evidence about the effect of prison and credibility issues identified at trial. She rejected claims for aggravated and exemplary damages, finding no oppressive Garda conduct. The State defendants did not dispute that the imprisonment was unlawful, but argued that the man would have been detained anyway if the proper procedure had been followed and should therefore receive only nominal damages.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that Irish law has no rigid “but for” rule extinguishing compensatory damages for false imprisonment on the basis that lawful detention could otherwise have occurred. The court said damages can reflect the loss of liberty and the impact of detention, while taking account of the person’s conduct and whether the illegality was procedural. Those factors may reduce an award, sometimes substantially, but do not automatically eliminate compensation.
The court also dismissed the man’s cross-appeal against the trial judge’s consideration of his credibility when setting damages. It said the trial judge could assess how credible his evidence was about the detention’s impact. The State had argued only for nominal damages, not that the €7,500 award should be reduced, so the amount was not otherwise reconsidered on appeal.
The Court of Appeal proposed dismissing the appeal and awarding the man his appeal costs, with no change to the High Court costs order. The judgment described those as preliminary views and gave the parties seven days to raise any objection before the court made its order.