Shackleton v Swift
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1913 |
| Year | 1913 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Local Government - Lunatic - Detention of Alleged Lunatic in Workhouse - Certificate of Medical Officer - Action for False Imprisonment against Workhouse Master - No Want of Good Faith or Reasonable Care - Stay of Proceedings -
By s. 330, sub-s. 1, of the Lunacy Act, 1890, “A person who after the passing of this Act …. does anything in pursuance of this Act, shall not be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings whether on the ground of want of jurisdiction or on any other ground if such person has acted in good faith and with reasonable care.”
The plaintiff was received as an alleged lunatic into a workhouse of which the defendant was the master under an order of a relieving officer made under s. 20 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, and requiring the defendant to receive and detain her in the workhouse for a period of three days. During that period a justice visited and examined the plaintiff but made no order regarding her, but the medical officer of the workhouse, before the expiration of the three days, gave a certificate in writing under s. 24 of the Act for her detention for fourteen days from its date. The plaintiff was detained in the workhouse for six days from the date of the certificate, when she was discharged by order of the medical officer. The plaintiff having brought an action for false imprisonment on the ground that her detention beyond the original period of three days was unauthorized, in the absence of an order of a justice:—
Held, that the Act gave special protection to officers and others acting under its powers in cases where, although they might have misconstrued the Act, and although they might have done things which they had no jurisdiction to do, they had acted in good faith and in a reasonable manner.
Held, further, that on the facts there was no evidence that the defendant had acted otherwise than in good faith and with reasonable care, even assuming that the further detention of the plaintiff beyond the original three days was unauthorized in the absence of an order of a justice.
Semble, that the further detention of the plaintiff beyond the original three days was authorized by the medical officer's certificate.
APPEAL of the defendant from an order of Rowlatt J. at chambers by which he set aside an order of Master Archibald staying all proceedings in the action under s. 330 of the Lunacy Act, 1890.
The action was brought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful detention of the plaintiff as an alleged lunatic in a workhouse of which the defendant was the master.
From the pleadings and affidavits it appeared that on and before July 22, 1911, the plaintiff, Mary Helen Shackleton, was living at Burnley in her father's house. On July 22, 1911, one Cryer, a relieving officer of the Burnley Union, acting under s. 20 of the Lunacy Act, 1890F1, removed the plaintiff, as being an alleged lunatic, from her father's house to the Burnley workhouse. He also made and signed a written order, directed to the defendant, in the following terms:—
“Burnley Union
July 22, 1911.
“To the Master of the Workhouse at Burnley.
“Receive into the workhouse one Mary Helen Shackleton, 15, Canning Street, Burnley a person deemed to be a lunatic, who is not under proper care or control and whom, I am satisfied, it is necessary for the public safety and her own welfare to place under care and control, until notice or information can be given, or she can be brought before a justice and relieve and detain her in the said workhouse for a period not exceeding three days, unless otherwise ordered before the expiration of such period.
“(Signed) Jas. Cryer
R.O.”
[The order then set out s. 20 of the Act.]
The relieving officer indorsed upon the order and signed the following: “The patient is threatening to commit suicide. Threatens to kill her stepmother, also her father. She is a professed spiritualist. 38 years. Wesleyan. Broker.”
The plaintiff was accordingly received into the workhouse about 10 P.M. on July 22. On July 25, 1911, Mr. Race, a justice of the peace for the borough, acting upon notice given to him by the relieving officer, visited and saw the plaintiff at the workhouse in the presence of the medical officer of the union, but made no order for the reception of the plaintiff into an institution for lunatics or otherwise, thinking it better not to do so at once, and on the same date Dr. A. W. Eadie, the medical officer of the workhouse, acting under s. 24, sub-s. 1, of the Lunacy Act, 1890, gave a certificate in writing that the plaintiff was a lunatic (for which he gave the grounds of his opinion) and a proper person to be allowed to remain in the workhouse as a lunatic. This certificate was in the following terms:—
“Certificate as to a Pauper Lunatic in a Workhouse.
“I, the undersigned medical officer of the workhouse of the above-named union, hereby certify that I have carefully examined into the state of health and medical condition of Mary Helen Shackleton, a pauper in the said workhouse, and that she is in my opinion a lunatic and a proper person to be allowed to remain in the workhouse as a lunatic and that the accommodation in the workhouse is sufficient for her proper care and treatment separate from the inmates of the workhouse not lunatics (or that her condition is such that it is not necessary for the convenience of the lunatic or of the other inmates that she shall be kept separate). The grounds for my opinion that the said Mary Helen Shackleton is a lunatic are as follows: The patient is excited in manner and speech. For observation. (Signed) A. W. Eadie.” By s. 24, sub-s. 2, of the Lunacy Act, 1890, a certificate under that section is sufficient authority for detaining a lunatic against his will for fourteen days from its date. On July 31, 1911, the plaintiff was discharged from the workhouse by the medical officer, he being of opinion that her medical condition had become satisfactory.
On January 20, 1912, the writ in the present action was issued, and on November 11, 1912, the plaintiff delivered a statement of claim, in which she alleged that on July 22, 1911, the relieving officer for the Burnley Union wrongfully and unlawfully removed her, as an alleged lunatic, from the house where she lived with her father to the workhouse of the Burnley Union, and by an order in writing of that date required the defendant, who was the master of the workhouse, to receive and detain the plaintiff in the workhouse for a period not exceeding three days, and that the defendant received and detained the plaintiff from July 22 to July 31.
By his statement of defence the defendant said that he was required by the relieving officer of the union to receive and detain the plaintiff for three days, and that on July 25, 1911, a justice of the peace visited and saw the plaintiff at the workhouse with the medical officer of the union and made no order for the reception of the plaintiff into an institution for lunatics, thinking it better not to do so at once, and that on the same date the medical officer, acting under s. 24, sub-s. 1, of the Lunacy Act, 1890, certified that the plaintiff was a lunatic (for which he gave the grounds of his opinion) and a proper person to be allowed to remain in the workhouse as a lunatic. The defendant further said that he acted in good faith and with reasonable care and was not liable in these proceedings by reason of the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1890.
The defendant took out a summons for an order that the action should be stayed on the ground that under s. 330 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, the action was not maintainable in the absence of any allegation that the defendant had not acted in good faith and with reasonable care in the detention of the plaintiff, and on the ground that it was not alleged in the statement of claim and that no facts were stated therein to shew or suggest that the defendant did not act in good faith and with reasonable care in the premises.
In support of the summons the relieving officer made an affidavit in which he said that when he removed the plaintiff to the workhouse he satisfied himself that she was deemed to be a lunatic and was not under proper control; that he arrived at the workhouse with the plaintiff about 10 P.M. on July 22, and delivered her into the care of the officer on duty in the mental wards; that at the same time he gave the officer the order signed by him, and that within three days he gave notice to Mr. Race, a justice of the peace for the borough of Burnley.
The medical officer, Dr. Eadie, made an affidavit in which he said that he interviewed the plaintiff on her admission to the workhouse; that he formed the opinion that she had been properly brought to the workhouse as an alleged lunatic, and that it was right and necessary to detain her there; that he was present when Mr. Race, a justice of the peace, interviewed the plaintiff at the workhouse; that the justice thought it better not to sign immediately an order for the reception of the plaintiff into an institution for lunatics, and that he agreed with him, and thought the plaintiff should be kept for observation at the workhouse; that accordingly, acting under s. 24, sub-s. 1, of the Act, he made and signed a certificate, in accordance with his honest opinion and after carefully examining her, that the plaintiff was in his opinion a lunatic, with the grounds of his opinion. And the defendant made an affidavit in which he said that, when the plaintiff was brought to the workhouse, he was absent therefrom on his annual leave; that he returned about 11.30 P.M. on that day, and that he learned on the following day that the plaintiff had been received into the workhouse, and that the order of the relieving officer was brought to him; that he considered that under s. 20 of the Act, upon the order of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v Greene
...LTD UNREP HIGH 19.10.84 1985/2/279 WUNDER V HOSPITALS TRUST (1940) LTD UNREP SUPREME 24.0.1967 & 22.02.1972 RSC O.1 r1 SHACKLETON V SWIFT 1913 2 KB 304 FAMILY LAW (PROTECTION OF SPOUSES & CHILDREN) ACT 1981 MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1930 S16(2) (UK) Synopsis: ACTION Institution Condition - Leav......
-
R v Bracknell Justices, ex parte Griffiths
...for alleging want of good faith or reasonable care." 13Section 330 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, a consolidating Statute, was considered in Shackleton v. Swift [1913] 2 K.B.304, where Vaughan Williams, L.J., said (at p. 312): "Here we are dealing with a particular subject-matter, lunacy, and th......
-
The North West Regional Health Authority v Cheryl Miller
...the same effect as provisions found in English cases that deal with statutes concerning the mentally ill. He referred in particular to Shackleton v Swift [1913] 2 KB 65 In that case the governing legislation was the Lunacy Act 1890 (UK). The plaintiff brought an action to recover damages f......
-
Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd
...the process of the court the task of satisfying the court that a stay should be imposed is, and should be seen to be, a heavy one: see Shackleton v. Swift. (1913) 2 King's Bench 304 at pages 311-312. 65 Unless the court is satisfied, a stay is a denial of justice by the court - a situation......
-
Courts 2
...Court may give for granting or refusing a stay may on occasions tend to have that result or at least imply it. In Shackleton v. Swift (1913) 2 K.B. 304, Kennedy L.J. said inter alia at 31-312: - “To stay an action, to say that an action shall not be tried, is generally to take a step which ......