Walid Niagui v The Governor of HMP Wandsworth

A person may be detained only under lawful authority. Where detention relies on a court order, its scope depends on the order’s terms. A remand warrant authorising detention until production at a specified hearing does not authorise detention after that hearing unless it says so.

In a challenge to detention, the detaining authority must demonstrate the legal authority for detention. Prison policies and release-checking procedures cannot themselves justify continued detention. After acquittal, a prisoner may be held only for the short period reasonably necessary to process an orderly release, not overnight or over a weekend merely because administrative checks cannot be completed.

The claimant was remanded in custody pending trial on charges of breaching notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He was acquitted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on the evening of 4 November 2022, but was transferred to a police station and then to HMP Wandsworth rather than released.

After enquiries by his solicitors failed to secure his release, he applied for a writ of habeas corpus. He was released shortly before the substantive hearing on 7 November, so the writ was not issued. The court nevertheless gave judgment because the claimant had plainly been detained unlawfully and the circumstances raised matters of continuing concern.

1. Lawful authority. The claimant’s remand warrant authorised detention “until produced at court on the next hearing date”, namely 4 November 2022. It did not authorise detention after that date. The Governor accepted that the warrant was not even prima facie authority for detention on the evening of acquittal or thereafter.
2. Burden in unlawful detention claims. Once detention is established, the detaining authority must show the legal authority for it. The claimant does not have to prove the absence of authority. This applies both to habeas corpus and false imprisonment claims.
3. Administrative procedures. Prison Service instructions and release checklists may serve important operational purposes, but compliance with them is not a lawful ground for detention. Prison staff must arrange checks for other warrants before the prisoner attends court or ensure that the necessary staff and records are available immediately after acquittal.
4. After acquittal, detention may be lawful only for the short period reasonably necessary to process an orderly release. Detention overnight or over a weekend because administrative processing cannot be completed is unlawful.
5. A solicitor’s complaint that a prisoner is unlawfully detained requires an urgent substantive response, including outside ordinary working hours. The court also indicated that consideration should be given to a new instruction or policy document explaining these legal principles to prison staff and contractors.
6. The claimant’s application was not pursued after his release. The Governor was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.