Accordingly, the following awards are of some assistance (though regard should be had to the markedly different circumstances obtaining in each case):
a.In R v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans the House of Lords approved the Court of Appeal’s award of £5,000 for the 59 days of unlawful detention, which came at the end of a lawful 18-month sentence of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal noted that there was no element of loss of reputation, humiliation, shock or injury to feelings. As the bulk of the detention was lawful there was also no element relating to the initial shock of imprisonment. The inflation adjusted award as at June 2006 was £6,074.
b.In Lunt v Liverpool Justices29 the Court of Appeal awarded £25,000 for 42 days of imprisonment. The whole period of detention was unlawful and arose from non-payment of rates. The Court acknowledged that there was no element in the award for the shock of sudden arrest or deliberate abuse of authority and that any damage to reputation was minor as there was no accusation of a crime. Account was taken of the Claimant’s age (57) and the fact that he had no previous experience of custody. The inflation adjusted award as at June 2006 was £37,766.
c.In ex parte Bouazza30 (1997) unreported, the claimant was awarded £10,000 for a 63-day period of unlawful detention, following a lawful period of 10 months detention. This figure did not include an award for aggravated damages or for personal injury (a separate award of £8,000 was made in respect of psychiatric injury). As Mr Bouazza was denied bail pursuant to the powers conferred on immigration officers by the Immigration Act 1971 the level of restraint on his liberty was less than that placed on a convicted prisoner. The inflation adjusted award as at June 2006 was £12,445.
15.In R (E) v Secretary of State for the Home Department31, a claim concerning a two-three day unlawful detention of the claimant asylum seekers at a detention centre prior to their removal from the UK, Mr Justice Mitting held that the soundest guidance for assessing damages was that provided by the Court of Appeal in Thompson & Hsu. He rejected the defendant’s submission that the better
29 (1991) 5 March unrep.
30 (1997) unrep.
31  EWHC 2500 (Admin).