Facts
Edward John Eyre had been the governor of Jamaica during the Morant Bay Rebellion. As governor he ordered a forceful response, which led to the deaths of numerous Jamaicans and the arrest and the summary execution of various political figures, whom Eyre believed to be instigators of the uprising. At the end of his term as governor, the colonial assembly had passed an Act of Indemnity covering all acts done in good faith to suppress the rebellion after the proclamation of martial law. [1]
When he returned to England, several Jamaicans sued him for trespass to the person and false imprisonment in the Courts of England.
Peter Handford described the background to the case as follows: [1]
In 1865 Edward John Eyre, the Governor of Jamaica, in the course of suppressing a revolt, caused a leading activist to be tried and executed under martial law. Over the next three years, a group of leading politicians and thinkers in England attempted to have Eyre prosecuted for murder. When the criminal process failed, they attempted to have him sued for trespass and false imprisonment. Though this case, Phillips v Eyre, was mainly concerned with constitutional issues, Willes J laid down a rule for choice of law in tort which endured for nearly a century before it was finally superseded.
The particular activist concerned was George William Gordon, a mixed-race member of the local assembly. Bad blood existed between Eyre and Gordon before the rebellion. [1] Having had Gordon and William Bogle, the brother of Paul Bogle, the main leader in the revolt, arrested on suspicion of treason, both were tried under martial law and then summarily executed within two days. The entire suppression of the rebellion was undoubtedly extremely violent. Some 439 people were killed by British forces, a further 600 odd were flogged and about 1000 houses burned down. [2] Further, evidence showed that some of the British officers treated the task as "hunting sport". [3]
Although most contemporary accounts seem to blame specific British military officers (under the command of General Luke O'Connor), rather than Eyre, sensational reporting of both the rebellion and its bloody suppression made Eyre a controversial figure in Britain. That came to be known as the "Jamaica Question", which essentially boiled down to the question of whether Eyre to be regarded as a hero, who had fulfilled his duties as governor in suppressing the rebellion and saving the white population of Jamaica from massacre, or a murderer, who should be prosecuted and held accountable for his crimes. Attempt to bring criminal proceedings against Eyre failed and so the various activists tried again bringing a civil suit. [4] The activists referred to themselves as the "Jamaica Committee" and included liberal thinkers like John Bright, Charles Buxton, Peter Alfred Taylor, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hughes, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and Goldwin Smith. [1]
Judgment
Exceptionally, the case was heard by a bench of six judges. Willes J gave the decision of the court.
Curiously, much of the case was dedicated not to the double actionability rule for which it would later be cited, but to argument upon whether (i) a law that was retrospective in nature was repugnant to natural justice and (ii) whether the law was defective as a matter of procedure as the Governor had passed a statute into law in respect of which he had a direct conflict of interest. The findings on double actionability are relegated to a few short passages near the end.
The Court held that Eyre could not be sued for his conduct in Jamaica. To bring an action the claimant must satisfy two requirements. Firstly, the alleged conduct must "be of such a character that it would have been actionable if it had been committed" in the local jurisdiction. Secondly, "the act must not have been justifiable by the law of the place where it was done." That is, it must be non-justifiable at the lex loci actus .
The Act that Eyre passed just before leaving caused his actions to be found to be justifiable by the law of Jamaica and thus he could not be actionable in England.
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
Personality rights, sometimes referred to as the right of publicity, are rights for an individual to control the commercial use of their identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers. They are generally considered as property rights, rather than personal rights, and so the validity of personality rights of publicity may survive the death of the individual to varying degrees, depending on the jurisdiction.
Paul Bogle was a Jamaican Baptist deacon and activist. He is a National Hero of Jamaica. He was a leader of the 1865 Morant Bay protesters, who marched for justice and fair treatment for all the people in Jamaica. After leading the Morant Bay rebellion, Bogle was captured, tried and convicted by the colonial government, and hanged on 24 October 1865 in the Morant Bay court house.
Edward John Eyre was an English land explorer of the Australian continent, colonial administrator, and Governor of Jamaica.
The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.
The Morant Bay Rebellion began with a protest march to the courthouse by hundreds of people led by preacher Paul Bogle in Morant Bay, Jamaica. Some were armed with sticks and stones. After seven men were shot and killed by the volunteer militia, the protesters attacked and burned the courthouse and nearby buildings. Twenty-five people died. Over the next two days, poor freedmen rose in rebellion across most of St. Thomas-in-the-East parish.
Saint Thomas, once known as Saint Thomas in the East, is a suburban parish situated at the south eastern end of Jamaica, within the county of Surrey. It is the birthplace of Paul Bogle, designated in 1969 as one of Jamaica's seven National Heroes. Morant Bay, its chief town and capital, is the site of the Morant Bay Rebellion in 1865, of which Bogle was a leader.
In conflict of laws, renvoi is a subset of the choice of law rules and it may be applied whenever a forum court is directed to consider the law of another state.
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.
George William Gordon was a Jamaican businessman, magistrate and politician, one of two representatives to the Assembly from St. Thomas-in-the-East parish. He was a leading critic of the colonial government and the policies of Jamaican Governor Edward Eyre.
The Jamaica Committee was a group set up in Great Britain in 1865, which called for Edward Eyre, Governor of Jamaica, to be tried for his excesses in suppressing the Morant Bay rebellion of 1865. More radical members of the Committee wanted him tried for the murder of British subjects, under the rule of law. The Committee included English liberals, such as John Bright, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, Thomas Hughes, Herbert Spencer and A. V. Dicey, the last of whom would eventually become known for his scholarship on the conflict of laws.
In conflict of laws, the choice of law rules for tort are intended to select the lex causae by which to determine the nature and scope of the judicial remedy to claim damages for loss or damage suffered.
Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.
Insurance bad faith is a tort unique to the law of the United States that an insurance company commits by violating the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which automatically exists by operation of law in every insurance contract.
Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 is a leading conflict of laws case decided by the House of Lords.
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Many ATS claims were filed after the Second Circuit ruling in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala created a new common law cause of action for torture under the ATS: "For purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind." The Court in Sosa does not find there is a similar cause of action for arbitrary arrest and detention. They wrote that finding new common law causes of action based on international norms would require "a substantial element of discretionary judgment", and explain that the role of common law has changed since ATS was enacted meaning the Court will "look for legislative guidance before exercising innovative authority over substantive law".
Double actionability is a doctrine of private international law which holds that an action for an alleged tort committed in a foreign jurisdiction can be successful in a domestic court only if it would be actionable under both the laws of the home jurisdiction and the foreign jurisdiction. The rule originated in the controversial case of Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1.
The tort of seduction was a civil wrong or tort in common law legal systems, and still exists in some jurisdictions.
Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.
William Francis Finlason (1818–1895) was an English journalist and legal writer.
