The appeal was upheld, ruling that the tort of misfeasance in public office is never actionable without proof of material damage as defined by Lord Bingham of Cornhill.

[6] He claimed that the officer′s interference with his mail had been deliberate and malicious and that this established the necessary element of intent for the tort of misfeasance in public office to apply.

[7] The action was first heard on 15 July 2003 at Leeds County Court before Judge Ibbotson who found in favour of the defendants, despite finding that three of the fourteen prison officers had acted in bad faith when dealing with the claimant′s legal correspondence.

[9] The claim was dismissed from the County Court as Mr Watkins failed to make representations that he had suffered any injury, loss or damage as a result of the instances of interference with his legal mail.

None of these cases (and no authority, judicial or academic, cited to the House) lends support to the proposition that the tort of misfeasance in public office is actionable per se.

In 2003, the House of Lords held in Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3) [2001] UKHL 16, [2003] 2 AC 1 that for the tort of misfeasance in public office to be actionable there had to be the essential ingredient of bad faith.