Bethel v AG of The Bahamas [2026] UKPC 26: Applying the test on vicarious liability in BXB

The Privy Council has handed down its judgment in the case of Bethel v AG of The Bahamas [2026] UKPC 26 in which it found that the employer was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee when applying the test set out in BXB v Trustees of the Barry Congregation [2023] UKSC 15. Lauranne Nolan, Senior Associate, considers the judgment in more detail.

Factual Background

Mrs Bethel was a Jamaican citizen who had been living in the Bahamas under a valid spousal permit since 2010. In the early hours of Saturday 13 December 2014, the police raided the Twilight Bar where she worked. Mrs Bethel was arrested for “immigration purposes” along with 11 other Jamaican women. At all material times she had in her possession a copy of her spousal permit allowing her to remain in The Bahamas, which she presented.

She was interviewed by the police and kept at a detention centre from approximately 3pm on the 13 December until 3.55pm on Monday 15 December 2014. Following an interview with Senior Immigration Officer Mr Norman Bastian (‘Bastian’) and a female immigration officer, Bastian sought permission from the Director of Immigration to leave the detention centre with Mrs Bethel to verify the information she had provided to the authorities. Bastian indicated that they would be accompanied by a female (the implication being that this would be a female immigration officer). Permission was given on that basis and Mrs Bethel was handed over to his custody.

Bastian was in fact accompanied by a female friend, not an immigration officer, but who remained with them while Bastian drove them to a number of locations, including a mechanics, a fast-food restaurant and Mrs Bethel’s home. Following this, the female friend was dropped off, and Bastian took Mrs Bethel to his office where he interviewed her again before taking her to a liquor store to purchase alcohol, to a Starbucks, and to his home address.

Bastian proceeded to rape Mrs Bethel twice and detained her unlawfully overnight before taking her back to her own home at 2.30pm on Tuesday 16 December 2014. Mrs Bethel subsequently reported the rapes to the police.

At the trial, in her judgment delivered on 27 January 2023, Madam Senior Justice Charles found:

1. Mrs Bethel’s arrest and detention by the police was not unlawful prior to 3pm on Saturday 13 December 2014 (albeit that her subsequent detention in the detention centre was unlawful and entitled her to damages for the tort of false imprisonment).
2. Mrs Bethel’s detention and rape by Bastian entitled her to damages against him for the torts of false imprisonment, assault and battery but did not render the other defendants vicariously liable for those torts.

Mrs Bethel’s estate (following her death due to Covid in May 2021) and Bastian both appealed.

In June 2024, Bastian’s appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal proceeded to overturn the decision on vicarious liability and found that Bastian’s wrongful conduct was sufficiently connected to his duties as an immigration officer to impose vicarious liability on his employers.

This was primarily because Bastian at all relevant times had custody of Mrs Bethel in his capacity as an immigration officer, was doing duties as an immigration officer, and did not release her from his custody until the Tuesday afternoon. Bastian had told a police officer that Mrs Bethel was still under arrest, and it was found that in contrast to the relationship of friendship in BXB, Mrs Bethel’s relationship with Bastian was only in the capacity of an arrested person in the custody of an immigration officer.

The defendants appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal. There were two issues on appeal:

1. whether Mrs Bethel had been unlawfully detained by the police, constituting tortious false imprisonment; and
2. whether Bastian’s employers were vicariously liable for his torts of false imprisonment, battery and assault.

Court of Appeal Judgment

The Board considered the police false imprisonment issue and noted that Mrs Bethel had been arrested under section 9 of the Bahamian Immigration Act, which permitted arrest on suspicion that a person had committed an offence if it appeared necessary “in order to secure that the ends of justice […] shall not be defeated”. Officers were required to have in mind the nature of the suspected offence and a factual basis for suspecting it. The Board found that the evidence of the Superintendent who had led the arrests was inconsistent, failing to establish what was in his mind at the time of the arrests or any need to make them in order to secure the ends of justice. Mrs Bethel’s arrest and consequent detention were unlawful, comprising the tort of false imprisonment.

In addressing the vicarious liability issue, the Board emphasised five points from the BXB judgment:

1. There are two stages. Stage 1 is concerned with the relationship between defendant and tortfeasor, Stage 2 with the link between the commission of the tort and that relationship.
2. The Stage 1 test is whether the relationship is, or is akin to, one of employment.
3. The Stage 2 test is “whether the wrongful conduct was so closely connected with acts that the tortfeasor was authorised to do that it can fairly and properly be regarded as done by the tortfeasor while acting in the course of his employment or quasi-employment”.
4. The standard common law application of principles from past case law should generally be used without needing to examine the underlying policy.
5. “In a difficult case, it can be a useful final check on the justice of the outcome to consider whether the outcome of applying the tests is consistent with the policy underlying vicarious liability”: that the employer should bear the cost of the wrong committed by their (quasi-) employee.

It was common ground that the Stage 1 test was made out. The Board also found that the Stage 2 test was satisfied. Bastian had the power to detain people as part of his role as a Senior Immigration Officer. He had purported to exercise that power when he took custody of Mrs Bethel, unlawfully detained her, and committed the rapes. Mrs Bethel was under his control and afraid of him. He was also under a common law duty of care to keep Mrs Bethel safe from harm while in his custody. There was a seamless sequence of events, with Mr Bastian never taking off his “metaphorical uniform”.

BXB was distinguished as, unlike in that case, there was no close relationship of friendship between the claimant and the tortfeasor. The only relationship between Bastian and Mrs Bethel arose from the seemingly official detention to which Mrs Bethel was subject. The “rape was an abuse of that relationship”. For these reasons, the Board dismissed the appeal.

Comment

When applying the test and points from the judgment in BXB, the Board concluded that the torts were clearly so closely connected to the actions the tortfeasor was authorised to undertake in his role as a Senior Immigration Officer that it was just to hold his employer vicariously liable. Notwithstanding the fact that Bastian drove Mrs Bethel around to various locations, including to restaurants which were clearly unrelated to his employment, before committing the rapes and false imprisonment.