Kamoka & Ors v The Security Service And Others

Kamoka & Ors v The Security Service And Others

The claimants' application for summary judgment fails because, on the open evidence, there is insufficient material to conclude that the Home Secretary's failure to consider certain information was irrational or that the public law error was established to the standard required for summary judgment. The evidential picture is incomplete, and the defendants have a real prospect of success at trial. There is no binding Court of Appeal authority that precludes the claims, and the Lumba principle applies, but the matter is not suitable for summary determination on the current record.

Parties
Claimants: Ismail Kamoka and others; Defendants: The Security Service and others; Special Advocates: Special Advocates (Angus McCullough QC, Tom Forster QC, Jennifer Carter-Manning, Rachel Toney)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Summary Judgment Application and Related Procedural Applications
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Trespass to the Person, Deportation, Detention Pending Deportation, Article 3 ECHR, Judicial Review, Closed Material Procedure
Public Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law False Imprisonment Trespass to the Person Deportation Detention Pending Deportation Article 3 ECHR +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ismail Kamoka and others

Claimants

The Security Service and others

Defendants

Special Advocates (Angus McCullough QC, Tom Forster QC, Jennifer Carter-Manning, Rachel Toney)

Special Advocates

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Summary Judgment Application and Related Procedural Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Home Secretary's failure to consider relevant information regarding UK-Libya security cooperation rendered the claimants' detention and deportation decisions unlawful
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the claimants on their false imprisonment and trespass claims under CPR Part 24
  3. 3 Whether binding Court of Appeal authority precludes the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' application for summary judgment fails because, on the open evidence, there is insufficient material to conclude that the Home Secretary's failure to consider certain information was irrational or that the public law error was established to the standard required for summary judgment. The evidential picture is incomplete, and the defendants have a real prospect of success at trial. There is no binding Court of Appeal authority that precludes the claims, and the Lumba principle applies, but the matter is not suitable for summary determination on the current record.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' application for summary judgment under CPR Part 24 is dismissed
  • Defendants to file CLOSED evidence and submissions by specified date for further consideration