The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged when, after several months, the court had been presented with no evidence of his involvement. He said that the public accusations of involvement had devastated his career, his private life and his health. The defendant responded that the ex gratia compensation scheme did not apply to extradition proceedings.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. The prosecutors had repeatedly made statements for which they knew the evidence was either non-existent or erroneous. The purpose of the compensation scheme was self-evidently to compensate those who had spent a period in custody resulting from a serious default on the part of a police officer or of some other public authority, in this case the CPS. In extradition proceedings, the defendant faces criminal charges before a UK court, and the wrong he suffers does not differ.
The court allowed the claimant to pursue its suggestion that the CPS had acted in breach of duty, and described that duty: ‘in the event of conflict between its instructions from the requesting state and its duty to the court, the CPS’s primary duty is to the court. ‘ The CPS were in breach of that duty: ‘the extradition proceedings themselves were a device to secure the appellant’s presence in the US for the purpose of investigating 9/11 rather than for the purpose of putting him on trial for non-disclosure offences. We also consider that the way in which the extradition proceedings were conducted in this country, with opposition to bail based on allegations which appear unfounded in evidence amounted to an abuse of process. The proceedings were used as a device to circumvent the rule of English law that a terrorist suspect could (at that time) be held without charge for only 7 days.’ and ‘there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the police and the CPS were responsible for serious defaults. ‘
Hooper LJ, Smith LJ, Lord Clarke MR
[2008] EWCA Civ 72, [2008] 3 WLR 375, [2008] QB 836, [2008] 2 All ER 1023, [2008] ACD 49
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Lee Admn 18-Mar-1999
Application for judicial review of CPS decision on disclosure of evidence before committal.
Held: The court recognised an ongoing duty of disclosure from the time of arrest. At the stage before committal, there are continuing obligations on . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2) HL 27-Jul-2000
The release date for a prisoner was calculated correctly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case law required the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained too long. The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict . .
Appeal from – Raissi and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis QBD 30-Nov-2007
The claimants had been arrested under the 2000 Act, held for differing lengths of time and released without charge. They sought damages for false imprisonment.
Held: The officers had acted on their understanding that senior offcers had more . .
Appeal from – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Cited – Regina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court QBD 23-Nov-2001
Where a magistrates’ court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for . .
Cited – Daghir and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 13-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Samuel Knowles, Junior v United States of America and Another PC 24-Jul-2006
(The Bahamas) The respondent sought the extradition of the appellant to face drugs charges. The appellant said that if extradited, he would not receive a fair trial, having been declared publicly by the US President to be a drugs ‘kingpin’.
Cited – The First Secretary of State and Another v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd CA 6-May-2005
Sedley LJ: ‘the interpretation of policy is not a matter for the Secretary of State, what a policy means is what it says. Except in the occasional case where a policy has been ambiguously or un-clearly expressed (see R v Derbyshire CCC, ex p Woods . .
Cited – Regina ex parte Grecian v Secretary of State for the Home Department 3-Dec-2004
. .
Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Alam v London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 23-Jan-2009
The claimant sought to challenge the defendant’s housing allocation policy. He said that as a homeless person he should have been given a reasonable preference for housing. The authority said he was not in priority need, and that the temporary . .
Cited – Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Cited – O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Judicial Review, Criminal Practice, Administrative
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.264517