Tort Law: Analysis of Watkins v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others - Case Study Example

CASE Watkins v Secretary of for the Home Department and Others Formal Particulars of case – Watkins v Secretary of for the Home Department and Others COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) [2004] EWCA Civ 966, [2004] 4 All ER 1158 2. Citations Cases referred to in skeleton arguments in this case include: Appleton v Garrett (1997) 34 BMLR 23. Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith (1966) 120 CLR 145, Aust HC. Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] 1 All ER 801, [1972] AC 1027, [1972] 2 WLR 645, HL. Cornelius v Hackney LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 1073, [2003] LGR 178. Hague v Deputy Governer of Parkhurst Prison, Weldon v Home Office [1991] 3 All ER 733, sub nom R v Deputy Governor of Pankhurst Prison, ex p Hague, Weldon v Home Office [1992] 1 AC 58, [1991] 3 WLR 340, HL. Harman v Tappenden (1801) 1 East 555, 102 ER 214. Holden v Chief Constable of Lancashire [1986] 3 All ER 836, [1987] QB 380, [1986] 3 WLR 1107, CA. Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd, Hunter v London Docklands Development Corp [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] AC 655, [1997] 2 WLR 684, HL. Page 4 [2004] EWCA Civ 966, [2004] 4 All ER 1158 Janvier v Sweeney [1919] 2 KB 316, [1918-1919] All ER Rep 1056, CA. Victorian Railways Comrs v Coultas (1888) 13 App Cas 222, PC. Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53, [2003] 4 All ER 969, [2003] 3 WLR 1137. Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57, [1895-1899] All ER Rep 267. Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1721, [2003] 3 All ER 932. 3. Court and judges Jeffrey Shane Watkins appealed from the order of Judge Ibbotson in the Leeds County Court on 15 July 2003 dismissing his claim for damages for misfeasance in public office brought against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Prison Officers Ravenscroft, Rosevere and Robinson, and eleven other prison officers. The facts are set out in the judgment of Brooke LJ. COUNSEL: Flo Krause for Mr Watkins; Wendy Outhwaite for the defendants JUDGMENT-READ: 20 July 2004. PANEL: BROOKE, CLARKE AND LAWS LJ Details of the Case 4. Relevant facts Mr. Watkins is a serving life prisoner. He complained of actions by prison officers between 1 May 1998 and 5 December 2000. He was detained at the Wakefield Prison for the first part of his sentence and by September 1999 he was moved to Frankland Prison. During this period the claimant was a serving prisoner and engaged in a variety of legal proceedings. He made frequent complaints that he was being treated by prison officers in a manner that conflicted with the requirement of r37A (or r39, as the case might be). His private legal correspondence was being made public and opened by prison officers. Mr Watkins attempted to pursue the matter both through the formal prison complaints systems and the Prisons Ombudsman but failed to provide satisfactory explanation or evidence, and he was eventually granted legal aid to bring an action for damages in the courts. By his particulars Mr Watkins claimed damages for misfeasance in public office against the Home Office and 14 named prison officers. 5. Nature of cause of action or claim Judge Ibbotson sitting in the Leeds County Court on 15 July 2003 found that three prison officers had acted in bad faith when dealing with his legally-privileged correspondence. Nevertheless the judge was not satisfied that Mr Watkins had suffered any loss or damages such as constituted an essential ingredient of the tort of misfeasance in public office. Thus it was held that this tort was not actionable per se and the claim was subsequently dismissed. The claimant appealed against the decision. 6. Outcome Despite no proof of damage, the claimant has the right of unimpeded access to the court. The three prison officers had maliciously infringed the claimant’s right to private legal correspondence, as laid out in accordance with r37A and thus the claimant’s cause of action in misfeasance in public office was complete. Thus the appeal was allowed. Legal Principles 7. Ratio decidendi In September 1998, Prison Officer Ravenscroft informed Mr Watkins that there were two legal letters for him. The legal paperwork marked r37A were already opened. In another incident, the judge found that Prison Officer Rosevere opened a letter addressed to Mr. Watkins fully marked r 37A, and that in doing so he acted in breach of the rule, as he intentionally chose to do so. The judge noted that Rosevere acted in bad faith in that he knew he was acting unlawfully or was reckless as to his conduct. However, the judge stated that there was no resulting damage in the form of financial loss or physical or mental injury, so that Mr Watkins initial claim against the officers failed in this regard. In a third incident, Officer Robinson opened the claimant’s letters and this was sufficient to establish the requisite degree of bad faith that constitutes the first element of the tort of misfeasance in public office. Again, the judge did not find that Mr Watkins had suffered any resulting injury, loss or damage such as was necessary to constitute the second ingredient of the tort. In an analysis of this case, the controversial point raised was whether proof of damage is a necessary ingredient of the tort of misfeasance in public office. This seems to be an emergent tort and it remained to be decided whether the tort was actionable. In case it was suggested that such conduct on the part of the defendant is actionable and he is liable to tort. Accordingly, the plaintiff must have suffered special damage in the sense of loss or injury which is specific to him and which is not being suffered in common with the public in general in order for the tort to be applicable. It was suggested that in tort of misfeasance in public office, the intent required must be directed at the harm complained of, or at least harm of the type suffered by the plaintiffs. It was made clear that damages or harm of the claimants made by the defendants should be considered to judge the case. It was also pointed out that the common law has clearly given special weight to the citizens right of access to the courts and this has been described as a constitutional right. It was judged that if a claimant is exposed to economic or material injury by virtue of the public officers deliberate malicious act, it will be inherent in his claim that he has suffered quantifiable loss; and he does not have to prove that his right has been violated by the actions of the officer and thus the loss has been caused. But the claimant may be adversely affected as the wrongful act may have interfered with a right of a kind which the law protects without proof of any loss. In that case, the public officers interference with the right will complete the tort and no actual damage needs to be shown. It was noted that the right of Mr Watkins which the three prison officers infringed was his constitutional right, so that when they maliciously infringed that right his cause of action in misfeasance in public office was complete even without proof of special damage. It was noted that there must be some nexus between the unlawful act committed by the public officer, and the circumstances of the claimant. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the public officers unlawful and malicious acts interfered with a constitutional right enjoyed by the claimant. 8. Obiter dicta The judge ruled that the defendants could not as a matter of law be liable for exemplary damages as no damages were proved. The matrix of the tort was discussed to explain how the law of tort denies a remedy to depositors who may suffer losses if the bank breaches its statutory duties, or due to negligent licensing or supervision by a regulatory authority1. In such cases, judicial review is sought. The tort of misfeasance in public office was considered as an exception to the general rule that, “if conduct is presumptively unlawful, a good motive will not exonerate the defendant, and that, if conduct is lawful apart from motive, a bad motive will not make him liable. It seemed evident from the hearing of the case, that recklessness about the consequences of an act on the part of the defendant, in the sense of not caring whether the consequences happened or not, was sufficient in law to suggest that the defendant meant intentional harm or deliberate breaking of law. It was also declared that if a public officer abuses his office, either by an act of omission or commission, and the consequence of that is an injury to an individual, an action may be maintained against such public officer. Yet in this no mental or physical injury was reported by the claimant. The tort is considered as historically an action on the case2. It was mentioned that in the last 300 years the courts had to re-examine the principles according to which they could decide whether a cause of action in tort lies with or without proof of special damage. Although proof of damage has been considered as a prerequisite for an action on the case, yet like so much in the common law this general rule was not inviolable3. Other cases were cited in which proof of special damage was waived to decide the case. An example cited was that an action by a traveller against an innkeeper for refusing to receive and lodge him4 could be considered as an action for violation of right at common law although there may be no proof of special damage in this case as well. Extracts of other cases were cited to suggest that actual perceptible damage is not indispensable as the foundation of an action in a tort case; it is sufficient to show that there has been a violation of a right, in which case the law will presume damage. Other Comments 9. The impact on existing law and society in general The judgement, initial dismissal of Watkins’ claim and subsequent granting of the appeal that the defendants were responsible for infringement of basic constitutional and human right, suggest the importance of tort law in prison conditions and in upholding human rights needs. The parties to an action in tort are prima facie the claimant and the defendant. The defendant is responsible for committing a tort, and has vicarious liability. The claimant in this case in Watkins and the defendants are the prison officers against whom the case was filed. The Home Office also has vicarious liability for the conduct of prison officers against the claimant. The Tort law allows a claimant to seek his legal constitutional rights5 which he is entitled to and if this right is infringed in any way, even without consequent or accompanying damages, the defendants and the employers, in this case the Home Office would be liable to compensate for financial damages if any. Similar cases in which the employer becomes liable for damages or irresponsible acts caused by their employees are given below. In this case, the Tort was related to misfeasance in public office and claims for special damage. Tort is thus a legal wrong done to an individual6 and there are clearly legal consequences of breaking the law. In this case, three prison officers deliberately engaged in malpractice and broke the law by opening and reading confidential legal letters meant for Mr. Watkins the claimant. Mr Watkins claimed that the officers acted against the rule and made his confidential letters public and thus committed tort by infringing on the claimant’s legal rights. The actions of the prison officers make the Home Office legally responsible to show the cause for such actions by the officers employed. The existing Tort law that is based on a legal right of a claimant to appeal against infringement of his constitutional rights by defendants who have deliberately intended harm or damage and broken the rule7, is one of the foremost laws that serve to uphold human right. Tort law is especially applicable in prisons if prison officers perform ill-treatment of prisoners and the prison officers can also be sued on the basis of this law if they cause damages, or injure or even infringe basic human rights of privacy of the prisoners. Tort law thus maintains basic human rights and is applicable not just in prison conditions but in wider social situations. Some examples are given below. 10. Subsequent developments The Tort law has provided the legal basis for any infringement of basic rights of privacy and is geared mainly towards personal damage or injury. Although as in this case, we have seen that direct personal damage or physical or mental injury may not be required to judge cases of tort and financial damages or damage to dignity and self esteem can also be considered sufficient to suggest liabilities of the defendants and also the employers as in some cases. The Watkins case has been significant as it has raised important issues on what the tort law should actually mean and what is the role of damage within this context and how damage could be defined. The fact that the claimant was betrayed of his confidentiality and privacy suggest that Tort law upholds basic human rights as primary, the infringement of which naturally implies some sort of damage. 11. Comparison with other jurisdictions Several cases in which there has been an infringement of basic human right and in which the employers have been made directly responsible for actions of their employees could be cited. In Morris v Marsden [1952] 1 All ER 925, the defendant was sued in tort for trespass to the person, seen as assault. This form of interference with the person requires only a voluntary act and there may have been a general intent to cause some ‘harm’ on the part of the defendant although there may not have been any specific intent to injure or cause damage. The defendant was found liable in trespass, and by this tort he was found capable of committing a ‘voluntary’ act of actually hitting the claimant. Even without specific intent of harm, the defendant was found to commit trespass and infringe on basic rights of privacy. In Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Export Credit Guarantee Department [1999] 2 WLR 540 [HL], the tort was related to deceit. The employee had committed some of the constituent elements of the tort within the course of his employment and the some parts of the tort were done outside the ambit of his duties or responsibilities given to him through his employment. Considering this the judge ruled that an employee can only be held vicariously liable for the fraud of an employee if all the elements of the tort have occurred within the course of his employment, which seems not to have occurred in this case. In O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] ICR 728, bar staff, who were called ‘regular’ casual workers, claimed unfair dismissal. It was pointed out by the defendants that they worked only when called in to work as required by their employers, and were not held as employees for the purposes of the case. It was suggested that the workers could refuse any work that was offered to them. The Court of Appeal emphasized that there has been a lack of mutual obligations in the employee-employer relationship. In Harrison v Michelin Tyre Co. Ltd [1985] 1 All ER 918, employers were held liable when their employee, playfully yet deliberately steered his vehicle at the claimant, who was in a factory in which he worked, at the time. The claimant was injured. The truck was driven away from an officially designated area in the factory to pursue the claimant. The person responsible for this action was still within his employment limits when he performed this joke of following the claimant and injuring him consequently. The action being undertaken within the capacity, time limits and responsibilities of the employment, the employers were also held legally responsible for any damage to the claimant. In another case in which the employer was held responsible for an employee’s action, in LCC v Cattermoles (Garages) Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 582, a garage assistant was employed to move vehicles inside a garage by pushing them as he was forbidden to drive the vehicles within his employment limits. Yet, his employer was found vicariously liable when he drove a van on to the nearby road to make more space in the garage as he was supposedly doing his duty, and damaged the claimant’s vehicle on the road. 12. Critical comments  In this case, the Tort case as filed against the three prison officers and the Home Office was judged in favour of the claimant Mr Watkins allowing him to appeal against the previous judge’s decision that there were no instances of damage. As there were basic infringement of human constitutional rights and the claimant’s private legal correspondence was hindered, the claimant was given a right to appeal and the damage was assumed. Considering similar cases, it can be said that as employees of the Home Office, the Prison Officers are legally responsible to act within the limits and ambits of their duties and since they have broken the law within the ambit of their employment, even the employers may be legally responsible for tort. Bibliography: Bagshaw, Roderick & McBride Tort Law, 2nd edition 2005 Hepple, Howarth and Matthews, Tort: Cases and Materials, 5th edn, London: Butterworths, 2000, Chapters 17 and 18. Jones, M., Textbook on Torts, 8th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 268–89. Markesinis, B.S., and Deakin, S.F., Tort Law, 4th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, 134–43, 496–522. Morris et al, Laying Down the Law, 4th ed, Butterworths, Sydney, 1996, 52-57 Weir, T., Casebook on Tort, 9th edn, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000 Chapters 6 and 7. WINFIELD, Percy Henry, Sir. A Text-Book of the Law of Tort. pp. xl. 728. Sweet & Maxwell: London, 1937. Cases: LCC v Cattermoles (Garages) Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 582. Harrison v Michelin Tyre Co. Ltd [1985] 1 All ER 918 Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Export Credit Guarantee Department [1999] 2 WLR 540 [HL] O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] ICR 728 Morris v Marsden [1952] 1 All ER 925 Constantine v Imperial London Hotels Ltd [1944] 2 All ER 171, [1944] 1 KB 693 Watkins v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others [2004] EWCA Civ 966, [2004] 4 All ER 1158 http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2676/watkins-v-sshd.htm Read More