Zenati v Police of the Metropolis & Anor

Detention under article 5(1)(c) remains lawful only while a reasonable suspicion persists. If investigating or prosecuting authorities cease to hold such a suspicion, they must bring the relevant facts before the court as soon as possible.

The article 5(3) duty to conduct proceedings with special diligence rests on the court. Investigators and prosecutors may nevertheless be responsible for a breach where their delay or failure to disclose material information causes the court to prolong detention unreasonably or to review it without the relevant facts.

A breach of article 5 does not by itself establish false imprisonment. Detention authorised by a judicial remand order remains distinct from executive detention, even where the court was not given all relevant information.

The claimant was remanded in custody after being charged with offences concerning a passport suspected to be counterfeit. A specialist examination established that the passport was genuine, but the result was not promptly communicated to the prosecution or the court. He remained detained until the true position was revealed at a later bail hearing.

HH Judge Mitchell in the County Court at Central London struck out claims against the police and the Crown Prosecution Service under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for breaches of articles 5(1)(c) and 5(3) of the Convention, together with a claim in false imprisonment. The central issues were whether the continued detention was arguably incompatible with article 5, whether investigative delay could found responsibility under article 5(3), and whether detention under a judicial remand order could constitute false imprisonment.

1. Appeal allowed in respect of the article 5 claims against both defendants; appeal dismissed in respect of false imprisonment. The pleaded facts disclosed arguable claims requiring factual investigation at trial.

2. Articles 5(1)(c) and 5(3) must be read together. Article 5(1)(c) is not confined to detention before the first court appearance. It legitimises detention continued for the purpose of bringing an accused before a court from time to time, but only while reasonable suspicion persists. A narrower construction would permit arbitrary detention during intervals between court hearings.

3. When investigating or prosecuting authorities cease to have a reasonable suspicion, they must bring the relevant facts to the court's attention as soon as possible. The court can then review the detention and order release. It was arguable that the police caused a breach by failing promptly to communicate the specialist finding that the passport was genuine. No corresponding responsibility was arguable against the CPS for the later period because it acted after learning of that finding.

4. The obligation of special diligence under article 5(3) rests on the court responsible for supervising pre-trial detention. It is not a separate, free-standing duty imposed directly upon investigators or prosecutors. Their conduct is nevertheless relevant. They may be responsible where their delay causes the court to fail to proceed with special diligence, or where withholding material information prevents a fair and properly informed review of detention.

5. It was arguable that unexplained delays by both the police and CPS made detention unreasonably long in the context of a straightforward investigation. The assessment had to consider all the circumstances realistically, including resources, the holiday period, the possible timing of the specialist report and bail hearing, and any contribution made by the claimant.

6. The false imprisonment claim was bound to fail. The long-established common law distinction between executive detention and imprisonment sanctioned by an independent judicial order remained applicable. A breach of article 5 does not, without more, constitute false imprisonment, and article 5(5) already provides an enforceable right to compensation. The position was unchanged merely because the court may have acted without knowledge of all relevant facts.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2015] EWCA Civ 80, allowed the appeal concerning the article 5 claims against both defendants and dismissed the appeal concerning false imprisonment.
2. County Court at Central London: HH Judge Mitchell struck out all claims under rule 3.4(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 because the Particulars of Claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing them.