Zenati v Police of the Metropolis & Anor

Zenati v Police of the Metropolis & Anor

The appeal is allowed in respect of Article 5 claims as it is arguable the police and CPS failed to act with special diligence and failed to inform the court promptly, causing unlawful detention. The false imprisonment claim fails as detention was by judicial order and not without lawful authority, and breach of Article 5 does not automatically create tort liability.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Sofian Zenati; 1st Respondent: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; 2nd Respondent: The Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of Article 5 claims; dismissed in respect of false imprisonment claims.
Legal Topics
Article 5 ECHR, False Imprisonment, Special Diligence, Judicial Review of Detention
Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Tort Law Article 5 ECHR False Imprisonment Special Diligence Judicial Review of Detention

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Sofian Zenati

Appellant

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

1st Respondent

The Crown Prosecution Service

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continued detention after reasonable suspicion ceased breached Article 5(1)(c) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether lack of special diligence by police/CPS breached Article 5(3) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether police/CPS liable for false imprisonment for period of detention

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed in respect of Article 5 claims as it is arguable the police and CPS failed to act with special diligence and failed to inform the court promptly, causing unlawful detention. The false imprisonment claim fails as detention was by judicial order and not without lawful authority, and breach of Article 5 does not automatically create tort liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of Article 5 claims; dismissed in respect of false imprisonment claims.

Orders

  • Article 5 claims reinstated for trial against both defendants.
  • False imprisonment claims struck out.