Motasim v Crown Prosecution Service & Ors

Motasim v Crown Prosecution Service & Ors

The claim against the first and second defendants is not speculative and should not be struck out at this stage, as the burden of proof lies on the defendants to justify detention and relevant material is in their possession. The claim against the third and fourth defendants (Security Services) is struck out as they are not investigating or prosecuting authorities and no cause of action is disclosed against them.

Parties
Claimant: Momen Motasim; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; Defendant: Security Service; Defendant: Secret Intelligence Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Breach of Human Rights / 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, False Imprisonment, Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure, Burden of Proof
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Article 5 ECHR 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Momen Motasim

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Defendant

Security Service

Defendant

Secret Intelligence Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Breach of Human Rights / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's detention breached Article 5 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds for action
  3. 3 Whether the Security Services owe Zenati-type duties

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the first and second defendants is not speculative and should not be struck out at this stage, as the burden of proof lies on the defendants to justify detention and relevant material is in their possession. The claim against the third and fourth defendants (Security Services) 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

  • 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; proceedings continue.