Important judgment - really for what the Supreme Court refused to do than what it did do. @DinahRoseQC leading @judebunting on the winning side (short thread)
The key thing Supreme Court refused to do was to align ancient common law tort of false imprisonment with materially different human rights concept of deprivation of liberty. Lady Hale + other 4 justices saw that this was in reality an attempt to water down false imprisonment 
It's a short judgment. It was about a man who was confined to a curfew 11pm-7am in his house for 891 days - the govt accepted it had been unlawful, but refused to accept it was a false imprisonment. The damages were £4,000, which isn't huge for such a long period
Haven't read the judgments below but assume it was low (compared to e.g. being unlawfully imprisoned for that period) because it was time he would mostly have been asleep and he was in his house.
Anyway, the most interesting thing about the judgment is that it bucks the trend of the Supreme Court aligning the common law with human rights law - but does so on the basis that alignment would lead to diminution of rights. This is a good standard.
Interesting nugget at the end. Public lawyers... ASSEMBLE!
PS I have developed a love for the word "ossuary"
I will end with the immortal words of junior counsel @judebunting in his recent Times Lawyer of the Week interview /end
@judebunting PS
Here is the admirably pithy discussion of what false imprisonment means. Just four paragraphs. Simples.
