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 should not be struck out as speculative because the burden of justifying detention lies on the state, and the claimant has pleaded sufficient facts. The claim against the third and fourth defendants is struck out as they are not investigating or prosecuting authorities and no cause of action is disclosed against them.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2071 (QB)
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 Under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
Outcome
Claim against third and fourth defendants struck out; claim against first and second defendants proceeds.
Legal Topics
Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty and Security), False Imprisonment, Public Interest Immunity (pii), Disclosure Obligations, Burden of Proof in Civil Claims, Strike Out Applications
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty and Security) False Imprisonment Public Interest Immunity (pii) Disclosure Obligations Burden of Proof in Civil Claims Strike Out Applications

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 Under CPR 3.4(2)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's detention was unlawful under Article 5 ECHR due to lack of reasonable suspicion and/or delay in disclosure of exculpatory material
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is speculative and should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service are proper defendants under Article 5 ECHR duties

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the first and second defendants should not be struck out as speculative because the burden of justifying detention lies on the state, and the claimant has pleaded sufficient facts. The claim against the third and fourth defendants is struck out as they are not investigating or prosecuting authorities and no cause of action is disclosed against them.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Strike out of claim against Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service (third and fourth defendants)
  • Refusal to strike out or dismiss claim against Crown Prosecution Service and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (first and second defendants)