Wainwright v. Home Office
Encyclopedia
Wainwright and another v Home Office (Respondents) [2003] UKHL 53; [2003] 3 WLR 1137 is an English tort law
case concerning the arguments for a tort of privacy, and the action for battery
.
awaiting trial. Because the stepbrother had been suspected of taking drugs in jail, the two visitors were asked to consent to a strip search
, under Rule 86(1) of the Prison Rules 1964 (consolidated 1998) which confers a power in general terms to search any person entering a prison. They reluctantly consented and were searched by prison officers, which they found upsetting. In particular Alan Wainwright was intimately handled in a way that the Home Office counsel conceded was battery
.
The Wainwrights subsequently went to a solicitor who had them examined by a psychiatrist. He concluded that Alan (who had physical and learning difficulties
) had been so severely affected by his experience as to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. Mrs Wainwright had suffered emotional distress but no recognised psychiatric illness.
The Court of Appeal
did not agree with the judge's extensions of the notion of trespass to the person and did not consider that (apart from the battery, which was unchallenged) the prison officers had committed any wrongful act. So they set aside the judgments in favour of the Wainwrights with the exception of the damages for battery, to which they attributed £3,750 of the £4,500 awarded to Alan by the judge.
The plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords
. Lord Hoffmann
held that there was no tort for invasion of privacy, because (owing to the experience in America) it was too uncertain. Moreover, a claim under Article 8 of the ECHR, (right to privacy and family life) did not help because the Convention was merely a standard which applied to whatever was currently present in the common law. Common law protection was sufficient privacy protection for the ECHR's purpose. The assertion that there may have been a breach of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) was completely unfounded. He held that there was also no claim for a tort of intention to cause harm under the Wilkinson v Downton
case.
In Lord Scott's
opinion the way the strip searches were carried out had humiliated and caused distress to both Mrs Wainwright and to Alan, and was "calculated (in an objective sense)" to do so, even if this was not the intention of the prison officers. However, that was not tortious at common law, even if the humiliation and distress were intended.
The appeal was dismissed unanimously by the law lords.
English tort law
English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court – in a criminal case...
case concerning the arguments for a tort of privacy, and the action for battery
Battery (tort)
At common law, battery is the tort of intentionally and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them . Unlike assault, battery involves an actual contact...
.
Facts
Alan Wainwright, with his mother, went to visit his stepbrother who was detained in Leeds prisonLeeds (HM Prison)
HM Prison Leeds is a Category B men's prison, in the Armley area of Leeds in West Yorkshire, England, which opened in 1847. Leeds Prison is operated by Her Majesty's Prison Service, and is still known locally as Armley Gaol , the historical name for the prison.-History:Construction of Leeds Prison ...
awaiting trial. Because the stepbrother had been suspected of taking drugs in jail, the two visitors were asked to consent to a strip search
Strip search
A strip search is the stripping of a person to check for weapons or other contraband.-Legality of strip searches:...
, under Rule 86(1) of the Prison Rules 1964 (consolidated 1998) which confers a power in general terms to search any person entering a prison. They reluctantly consented and were searched by prison officers, which they found upsetting. In particular Alan Wainwright was intimately handled in a way that the Home Office counsel conceded was battery
Battery (tort)
At common law, battery is the tort of intentionally and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them . Unlike assault, battery involves an actual contact...
.
The Wainwrights subsequently went to a solicitor who had them examined by a psychiatrist. He concluded that Alan (who had physical and learning difficulties
Learning difficulties
Learning difficulties may refer to:*The conditions known in North America as learning disabilities, which are called "specific learning difficulties" in the United Kingdom...
) had been so severely affected by his experience as to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. Mrs Wainwright had suffered emotional distress but no recognised psychiatric illness.
Judgment
At Leeds Crown Court the judge at first instance held that in this case the searches were not protected by statutory authority and were wrongful because of the battery and invasion of the Wainwrights' "right to privacy", which he conceived to be a trespass to the person. He awarded Alan Wainwright £3,500 basic and £1,000 aggravated damages, and Mrs Wainwright £1,600 basic and £1,000 aggravated damages.The Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom above it...
did not agree with the judge's extensions of the notion of trespass to the person and did not consider that (apart from the battery, which was unchallenged) the prison officers had committed any wrongful act. So they set aside the judgments in favour of the Wainwrights with the exception of the damages for battery, to which they attributed £3,750 of the £4,500 awarded to Alan by the judge.
The plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords
Judicial functions of the House of Lords
The House of Lords, in addition to having a legislative function, historically also had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers, for impeachment cases, and as a court of last resort within the United Kingdom. In the latter case the House's...
. Lord Hoffmann
Leonard Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann
Leonard Hubert "Lenny" Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann, PC is a retired senior British judge. He served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1995 to 2009...
held that there was no tort for invasion of privacy, because (owing to the experience in America) it was too uncertain. Moreover, a claim under Article 8 of the ECHR, (right to privacy and family life) did not help because the Convention was merely a standard which applied to whatever was currently present in the common law. Common law protection was sufficient privacy protection for the ECHR's purpose. The assertion that there may have been a breach of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) was completely unfounded. He held that there was also no claim for a tort of intention to cause harm under the Wilkinson v Downton
Wilkinson v Downton
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 Q.B. 57, is a famous English tort law decision in which the Common Law first recognised the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock.-Background:...
case.
In Lord Scott's
Richard Scott, Baron Scott of Foscote
Richard Rashleigh Folliott Scott, Baron Scott of Foscote PC, QC , is a British judge, who formerly held the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.-Early life:...
opinion the way the strip searches were carried out had humiliated and caused distress to both Mrs Wainwright and to Alan, and was "calculated (in an objective sense)" to do so, even if this was not the intention of the prison officers. However, that was not tortious at common law, even if the humiliation and distress were intended.
The appeal was dismissed unanimously by the law lords.
External links
- Text of Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53