- BY Free Movement
Misfeasance in public office
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
UKBA got away with an appeal against a finding of misfeasance in public office in the new case of Muuse v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 453, but lost on the award of exemplary damages. In the course of judgment Lord Justice Thomas held that the award of £27,000
was needed to stigmatise the conduct of the officials at the Home Office as an outrageous and arbitrary exercise of executive power
While the appalling facts of the case might surprise some (prolonged detention of a Dutch national when there was no power to do so), I have a case pending where UKBA refused to release a detainee even though there was DNA evidence that the detainee was British and even after bail had been granted. Unbelievably, they are choosing to fight the case. Maybe we’ll get a finding of misfeasance on those facts…
SHARE
2 responses
Muuse reminded me of this-> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/10/law
Good luck with your case, I hope that you get to the bottom of the problem.
The Muuse case is a shocker for the HO.
FM
You said “I’m not sure that the bureaucracy of UKBA could get any more Byzantine”
Is this case what you had in mind when you wrote that response?
How often do you see such examples of “systemic failure/incompetance”?