Wainwright v Home Office
English law does not recognise a general tort of invasion of privacy.
Facts
Mrs Wainwright and her son, who had learning difficulties and cerebral palsy, visited her other son in Armley prison in Leeds. Because prison officers suspected that the prisoner was dealing in drugs, they strip searched the visitors before allowing the visit, in a way that breached the prison rules and humiliated them. The events occurred before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. They sued for damages, arguing among other things that there was a common law tort of invasion of privacy.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that there is no general tort of invasion of privacy in English law. Lord Hoffmann said that privacy is a value that underlies the existence of particular rules of law, such as breach of confidence and trespass, rather than a principle of law in itself, and that developing a general tort of privacy was a task for Parliament, particularly now that the Human Rights Act was in force. The son recovered damages for battery, because a prison officer had touched him during the search, but Mrs Wainwright recovered nothing. The European Court of Human Rights later held, in Wainwright v United Kingdom (2006), that the searches breached article 8 and that the lack of a remedy breached article 13.
Related cases on civil liberties: expression, assembly, privacy and police powers
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) 9 QBD 308
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
