Foundations in Law 1:
Lumba1, a leading case in false imprisonment heard by the the Supreme Court, established
that a detainee would only be awarded damages if an error made by the Secretary of State
was the sole reason for the detention. In other words, if the detainee would have been
lawfully detained irrespective of the error then he would not be entitled to any more than
nominal damages for the tort of false imprisonment. This set the precedent for all similar
cases decided immediately after Lumba and continues to be considered in cases of false
imprisonment of foreign national prisoners today.
An example of this is DN (Rwanda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department2 in which a
Rwandan appealed against the dismissal of his claim against deportation (following being
granted refugee status in the U.K.) as well as for damages as a result of his ‘unlawful’
detention. R (on the application of Draga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
was considered in this case, in which it was ruled that the detention was only unlawful until
the Secretary of State issued an order to sever their refugee status in order to maintain the
deportation order3. This issue in itself was largely decided by looking at the Lumba case, in
which it was held that in order for there to be a liability for damages, the public law error
committed by the secretary of the state had to bear on and be relevant to their detention.
As a result of the Lumba case, as well as the influence it had on Draga and the points made
above, the judicial review application made by DN was rejected.
There are a number of similarities and distinctions between the Lumba and DN case. Firstly,
in both cases, a claim was made for unlawful detention. However, as mentioned by Lord
Hope of Craighead DPSC whilst referring to Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v
Ramanoop, one must consider the gravity of the breach committed by the Secretary of State
when comparing to cases such as the one mentioned in which there was ‘some appalling
misbehaviour’4. During the Lumba case, Lord Hope was convinced that the appellants were
detained lawfully and that releasing them would be wrong. Whilst DN maintained that the
previous cases were decided ‘per incuriam’, it was decided that such a matter is one for the
1 [2012] 1 A.C. 245
2 (2018) EWCA Civ 273
3 [2012] EWCA Civ 842
4 (2011) UKSC 12
Lumba1, a leading case in false imprisonment heard by the the Supreme Court, established
that a detainee would only be awarded damages if an error made by the Secretary of State
was the sole reason for the detention. In other words, if the detainee would have been
lawfully detained irrespective of the error then he would not be entitled to any more than
nominal damages for the tort of false imprisonment. This set the precedent for all similar
cases decided immediately after Lumba and continues to be considered in cases of false
imprisonment of foreign national prisoners today.
An example of this is DN (Rwanda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department2 in which a
Rwandan appealed against the dismissal of his claim against deportation (following being
granted refugee status in the U.K.) as well as for damages as a result of his ‘unlawful’
detention. R (on the application of Draga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
was considered in this case, in which it was ruled that the detention was only unlawful until
the Secretary of State issued an order to sever their refugee status in order to maintain the
deportation order3. This issue in itself was largely decided by looking at the Lumba case, in
which it was held that in order for there to be a liability for damages, the public law error
committed by the secretary of the state had to bear on and be relevant to their detention.
As a result of the Lumba case, as well as the influence it had on Draga and the points made
above, the judicial review application made by DN was rejected.
There are a number of similarities and distinctions between the Lumba and DN case. Firstly,
in both cases, a claim was made for unlawful detention. However, as mentioned by Lord
Hope of Craighead DPSC whilst referring to Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v
Ramanoop, one must consider the gravity of the breach committed by the Secretary of State
when comparing to cases such as the one mentioned in which there was ‘some appalling
misbehaviour’4. During the Lumba case, Lord Hope was convinced that the appellants were
detained lawfully and that releasing them would be wrong. Whilst DN maintained that the
previous cases were decided ‘per incuriam’, it was decided that such a matter is one for the
1 [2012] 1 A.C. 245
2 (2018) EWCA Civ 273
3 [2012] EWCA Civ 842
4 (2011) UKSC 12
