Kamoka & Ors v Security Service & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1665 (25 October 2017)

Kamoka & Ors v Security Service & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1665 (25 October 2017)

The claims of the appellants constitute an abuse of process as they amount to a collateral challenge to final decisions of SIAC and the High Court in Control Order proceedings. The appellants had as full an opportunity as possible, given statutory constraints and the use of Special Advocates, to contest the relevant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 1665
Parties
Appellant: Ismail Kamoka; Appellant: Ziad Ali Hashem; Appellant: Abdel Nasser Bourouag; Appellant: Khaled Abusalama Al Allaqi; Appellant: Alia Bibi Hassan (Administratrix for the Estate of Faraj Hassan Al-Saadi); Respondent: The Security Service; Respondent: The Secret Intelligence Service; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: The Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Respondent: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; claims struck out as abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, State Immunity, Disclosure Obligations, False Imprisonment, Misfeasance in Public Office, Control Orders, Special Advocates, SIAC Proceedings
Public Law National Security Law Tort Law Human Rights Abuse of Process Collateral Attack State Immunity Disclosure Obligations +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ismail Kamoka

Appellant

Ziad Ali Hashem

Appellant

Abdel Nasser Bourouag

Appellant

Khaled Abusalama Al Allaqi

Appellant

Alia Bibi Hassan (Administratrix for the Estate of Faraj Hassan Al-Saadi)

Appellant

The Security Service

Respondent

The Secret Intelligence Service

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

The Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Respondent

The Home Office

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims constitute an abuse of process as a collateral attack on previous SIAC and Control Order decisions
  2. 2 Whether the Hunter doctrine applies where earlier proceedings involved closed material and Special Advocates
  3. 3 Whether the appellants had a full opportunity to litigate the issues in earlier proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claims of the appellants constitute an abuse of process as they amount to a collateral challenge to final decisions of SIAC and the High Court in Control Order proceedings. The appellants had as full an opportunity as possible, given statutory constraints and the use of Special Advocates, to contest the relevant issues. The doctrines of abuse of process and Henderson v Henderson apply even in the context of closed material procedures. Further litigation would undermine finality and the integrity of the judicial process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; claims struck out as abuse of process.

Orders

  • Claims of all appellants struck out as abuse of process.
  • No further proceedings permitted on these claims.