The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down judgment in the case of The Prison Officers Association v Iqbal [2009] EWCA Civ 1312 on 4th December 2009. The case concerned a claim of false imprisonment by Mr Iqbal against prison officers who took unlawful strike action. The prisoner, who would otherwise have been allowed out of his cell for the purpose of working, healthcare and exercise, had been confined to his cell following the issue of a Governor’s order in response to the strike action.

On appeal by the Prison Officers Association, whilst acknowledging prisoners’ rights, the court concluded that there had been no false imprisonment as the mere failure of the prison officers to work at the prison involved no positive action on their part; the defendant is not to be held liable for the tort of imprisonment as a result of a failure to release the claimant where there is not a specific duty to do so. In the present case the duty of the prison officers was owed to the Governor under the terms of their contract of employment. The court confirmed that it was not necessary to depart from the general rule that all forms of trespass require an intentional act. Although in the present case there was a causal link between the strike action and the claimant’s confinement, as a result of the Governor’s order the strike could not be held to be the immediate and direct cause of the confinement.

Referring to the practicalities of upholding a claim for false imprisonment, the court commented that it was desirable to limit claims by prisoners who are left locked in their cells by the inaction of prison officers, to cases where the officers are guilty of misfeasance in a public office; officers should only be held liable if the inaction was “deliberate and dishonest”.