Tort Law

Murray v. Ministry of Defence

[1988] 2 All ER 521; [1988] 1 WLR 692

Facts

• Margaret Murray lived with her family in Belfast.
• The Army suspected her of involvement in collecting money for the Irish Republican Army.
• At approximately 7:00 a.m., soldiers entered her home under orders to arrest her pursuant to emergency legislation operating in Northern Ireland.
• The soldiers searched the house, gathered the family together and maintained control over their movements.
• Mrs Murray was permitted to dress before being taken away.
• The formal words informing her that she was under arrest were not spoken until approximately 7:30 a.m.
• She was then transported to a screening centre, where she underwent a pat-down search, provided basic identifying information and was interviewed.
• She generally refused to answer questions beyond giving her name.
• Mrs Murray was released at approximately 9:45 a.m.
• She alleged that the period before the formal announcement of arrest and aspects of her later detention amounted to false imprisonment and unlawful interference with her person.

• At what point was Mrs Murray legally arrested and deprived of her liberty?
• Whether false imprisonment requires the claimant to know at the time that freedom of movement has been restrained.
• Whether delaying the formal announcement of arrest made the initial restraint unlawful.
• Whether her detention and questioning at the screening centre exceeded the lawful authority of the soldiers.

• False imprisonment consists of the intentional and total restraint of a person’s freedom of movement without lawful justification.
• Restraint may be imposed through:
o physical force;
o barriers;
o submission to authority; or
o conduct clearly communicating that the person is not free to leave.
• No technical formula or particular words are always necessary to create an arrest.
• A person may be imprisoned even without knowing about the restraint at the relevant time.
• Awareness may affect the amount of damages but is not an essential element of the tort.
• Where the restraint is carried out under statutory authority, the defendant must remain within the scope of that authority and act reasonably in exercising it.

• From the moment the soldiers entered the house at 7:00 a.m., they were acting under instructions to arrest Mrs Murray.
• Their conduct objectively communicated that she was under military control and was not free to leave.
• The arrest therefore began when effective restraint was imposed, not only when the formal words were spoken at 7:30 a.m.
• The delay in announcing the arrest did not automatically make the restraint unlawful.
• The soldiers first had to secure the house, control the situation and avoid resistance, alarm or interference. In the operational circumstances, postponing the formal announcement was considered reasonable.
• Mrs Murray’s possible lack of immediate awareness that she had technically been arrested did not mean that no imprisonment existed. The tort is concerned with the fact of total restraint.
• However, the restraint was supported by statutory authority based on the soldiers’ genuine suspicion concerning her alleged activity.
• Her detention at the screening centre also remained within the permitted statutory period.
• The questioning concerned the subject of the suspicion and was not shown to be oppressive or unrelated to the lawful purpose of detention.
• Since every material period of restraint was authorised and reasonably carried out, the essential element of absence of lawful justification was not established.

• The House of Lords held that Mrs Murray had been under arrest from approximately 7:00 a.m., when the soldiers exercised effective control over her movements.
• The formal words spoken at 7:30 a.m. merely confirmed an arrest that had already occurred.
• Knowledge of confinement was not required for false imprisonment; a person may be restrained without being immediately conscious of the restraint.
• Nevertheless, Mrs Murray was not falsely imprisoned because the arrest was legally authorised and the delay in formally announcing it was reasonable in the circumstances.
• Her subsequent detention and questioning were also within the lawful statutory power.
• The claim against the Ministry of Defence therefore failed.