Motasim v Crown Prosecution Service & Ors [2017] EWHC 2071 (QB) (15 August 2017)

Motasim v Crown Prosecution Service & Ors [2017] EWHC 2071 (QB) (15 August 2017)

The claim against the first and second defendants is not speculative and should not be struck out because the claimant has pleaded sufficient facts regarding his detention, and the burden to justify detention lies on the defendants. The claim against the third and fourth defendants is struck out as they are not proper parties under Article 5 ECHR for these purposes.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2071
Parties
Claimant: Momen Motasim; First Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service; Second Defendant: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; Third Defendant: Security Service; Fourth Defendant: Secret Intelligence Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages Under Human Rights Act 1998 (article 5 Echr) / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claim against third and fourth defendants struck out; claim against first and second defendants proceeds.
Legal Topics
Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty), False Imprisonment, Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure, Burden of Proof
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty) False Imprisonment Public Interest Immunity Disclosure Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Momen Motasim

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

First Defendant

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Second Defendant

Security Service

Third Defendant

Secret Intelligence Service

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Damages Under Human Rights Act 1998 (article 5 Echr) / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's detention breached Article 5 ECHR due to lack of reasonable suspicion and/or delay in disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is speculative
  3. 3 Whether the Security Services are proper defendants under Article 5 ECHR claims

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the first and second defendants is not speculative and should not be struck out because the claimant has pleaded sufficient facts regarding his detention, and the burden to justify detention lies on the defendants. The claim against the third and fourth defendants is struck out as they are not proper parties under Article 5 ECHR for these purposes.

Court Disposition

Claim against third and fourth defendants struck out; claim against first and second defendants proceeds.

Orders

  • Claim against Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service struck out.
  • Claim against Crown Prosecution Service and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis not struck out.