Wrongful arrests for alleged breaches of bail conditions are alarmingly common. As a solicitor who specialises in actions against the police, unlawful detention and claims against the Ministry of Justice, I regularly act for clients who are wrongly arrested because State bodies fail to update or accurately record bail conditions.
In this blog post, I explain how I secured £13,000 compensation (plus costs) for my client after he was wrongly arrested and detained for over 52 hours—not due to police misconduct or EMS error, but because the Crown Court itself failed to update his curfew variation. This case highlights a troubling pattern of Ministry of Justice negligence, bureaucratic delay and breaches of personal liberty that I believe the public needs to understand.
If you or someone you know has experienced a wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, an Electronic Monitoring Service error, or an unlawful bail breach allegation, this case study shows how such injustices can be challenged—and rectified.
My Mission as a Personal Liberty Solicitor
Most people know what a Personal Injury solicitor is. Far fewer realise that there is a specialist branch of civil litigation dedicated to defending the rights of individuals who have been wrongly arrested, unlawfully detained, or mistreated by the police, courts or other State authorities.
After three decades specialising in actions against the police and claims against the Ministry of Justice, I have come to describe my role not simply as a lawyer, but as a Personal Liberty Solicitor. My work both builds upon and strives to support the two fundamental pillars of any democratic society:
- Autonomy of the individual; and
- Accountability of State authorities.
My commitment is simple: I will always fight to obtain the maximum compensation for my clients, however long or complex the case may be.
Unlike many other lawyers who are, frankly, less passionate about their work and/or less confident due to their not having my wealth of experience, I am not looking for a ‘quick buck’ or a too- easy win. I don’t see my clients as commodities, but each and every one as deserving individuals – as I think the cases I have now been reporting on this blog for over 15 years, amply demonstrate.
One of the individuals who I have most recently been able to help was my client, Paul Jones. Paul had suffered one of those all too common wrongful arrests for breach of bail about which I have blogged on many previous occasions – although on this occasion the culprit was not the Police or the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS) – but the Crown Court itself (to be sued in the name of the Government Department which controls it, the Ministry of Justice).
The Ministry of Injustice: How A Crown Court Error Led to A Wrongful Arrest
Prior to the events in question, Paul was under criminal investigation and was on conditional bail, which included a tagged 7pm – 7am curfew, operated by the Electronic Monitoring Service. However, this condition was varied by the Crown Court on 28 June 2021 to become a 7pm – 3.15am curfew, to accommodate a change in my client’s employment commitments.
Notwithstanding the Court Order, Paul was then reported for breach of bail by EMS on both the 1st and 2nd July 2021, as if his old bail conditions were still in place.
On the basis of those reports, on the morning of Saturday 3 July 2021, Officers of the Metropolitan Police came knocking on Paul’s door and arrested him for breach of bail. He was handcuffed and taken into custody, with the Officers’ deaf to his pleas as to the true circumstances and detained (over the weekend) until the morning of Monday 5 July 2021, when he was conveyed, again in handcuffs to the local Magistrates Court.
Shortly after lunchtime, it was determined that Paul was not in fact in breach of his bail conditions, and he was at last released from custody.
Thus did Paul experience, as so many before him have, who have been caught up in the slow moving wheels of incompetent Court bureaucracy, that ‘evil twin’ of the Long Weekend; wrongfully arrested on a Friday or Saturday they have to cool their heels in a Police cell for several days, waiting for the lights to come back on (both literally and metaphorically) in the Court on Monday.
Building the Case
After Paul instructed me, on a no win, no fee basis, I quickly identified that the Crown Court was at fault for failing to immediately update EMS as to the change in my client’s bail conditions. They had two clear working days in which to ensure that the relevant databases were updated following the decision on 28th June 2021, but failed to do so, leaving EMS in the dark as to the change of conditions and thereby causing EMS to issue a ‘breach’ notification to the Police. Neither EMS nor the Police could have known that my client’s conditions had been varied, owing to the Court’s tardiness in updating records which should be of the highest priority, pertaining as they do to a person’s liberty – and valuable Police time.
Owing to the Court’s negligence, Paul suffered a galling loss of liberty of over 52 hours.
In response to the letter of claim which I advanced on behalf of Paul, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) put forwards – without any admission of liability – an offer of settlement in the sum of £6,560. I had no hesitation in advising Paul to reject this offer, as being far too low.
When the Ministry of Justice failed to increase this offer, I brought civil Court proceedings on behalf of my client. You might have thought this would be enough to get the MOJ to ‘pay up’, but common- sense does not always dictate the actions of Government departments, which frequently fail to shy at throwing public money away in an attempt to frustrate legitimate claims by other members of the public. The MOJ’s Defence to our claim consisted of 146 paragraphs of substantial pleading, prepared by a highly experienced (and no- doubt highly expensive) barrister of 30 years call, Mr Timothy Holloway.
Breaking-Down the MOJ’s Defence
Rather than admitting the fault that was plainly theirs, the MOJ ran a vast raft of arguments against the claim, including the following –
- Claimed a defence of Crown or judicial immunity pursuant to Section 2 (5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947;
- Cited case law in support of its position (particularly the interplay and relationship between judicial and administrative actions), including the case of Quinland v Governor of HM Prison Belmarsh and Others [2002] EWCA Civ 174;
- In relation to the statutory definitions of the Data Protection Act 2018 –
i. Denied that they were a ‘controller’ or ‘processor’ of data in the circumstances of this case;
ii. Denied that a Court Order is ‘data’;
iii. Denied that my client was a ‘data subject’ in any relevant sense;
iv. Asserted that even if they were a controller or processor of relevant data in the circumstances then it would not be liable;
v. Placed reliance upon the exemptions provided by Schedule 2 to the DPA 2018 for those acting in a judicial capacity, averring that ‘judicial’ should be interpreted as including the administration of the Orders of the Court.
- Denied that any duty of care of common law was owed to my client,
- Denied any assumption of responsibility by the Court to ensure that the records within its possession/control were accurate/up to date, or to take reasonable steps to ensure my client was not exposed to an unnecessary risk of unlawful arrest
- Denied that my client’s alleged losses were foreseeable or proximate to the alleged breaches of duty
- Averred that it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose the duties of care alleged in the circumstances in that –
i. The imposition of a duty of care in the circumstances would conflict with the Court’s public duty and/or have a tendency to discourage the due performance of the Court’s functions;
ii. That the imposition of such a duty of care would probably lead to a diversion of public servants from their duties, contrary to the interests of the general public;
iii. The imposition of a duty of care in the circumstances would have unforeseen consequences and repercussions in “limitless different scenarios”;
- Averred that the claim for aggravated and exemplary damages should be struck out;
- Disputed the statement of value and sought to limit my client’s claim to damages not exceeding £5,000.
Owing to my expertise in this field of litigation I was confidently able to advise my client that the MOJ’s claim of “judicial immunity” did not in fact apply to administrative errors by Court staff, and that the case law fully supported our definition of the matter as a breach of the Data Protection Act, as well as a violation of Paul’s right to liberty, as protected by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and enshrined in UK law under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Delivering Damages
A less experienced solicitor or a litigant in person might have quailed at the complexity of the Defence, and perhaps cashed in their chips when the MOJ’s next offer of £9,500 (inclusive of legal costs, so in reality worth far less than its face value to my client) was made, after several months of further litigation, but I did not. Instead, I utilised my litigation skills to ensure that the case was allocated to the multi- track (reserved for the most important civil cases) and continued the claim until the MOJ finally agreed to pay Paul fair compensation of £13,000 plus his legal costs to be paid separately.
My Client’s Testimonial
The MOJ had tried to throw their weight around, but my client and I had punched back with equal weight. It was Paul’s patience, determination and trust in me that allowed me to carry the case through to such a successful resolution. I was proud to get this result for him, and I am proud to let him have the last word of this blog in the terms of the Trustpilot review which he wrote of me afterwards:
“The process of my case was complex. I was offered 3 offers, all 3 offers was rejected with the guidance & support of Iain & the 4th was accepted at court because of the professionalism & knowledge Iain has. As a result he was success in receiving the maximum amount in court. My whole journey has been 5* I’ve been contacted / updated throughout the process. The passion he has for helping he’s clients is beyond words. I would highly recommend Iain Gould to any one that needs a solicitor! Thank you Iain.”
My client’s name has been changed.
How You Can Help
Behind each of my blog posts are countless hours of experience, research, and reflection on real cases. If you’ve benefited from reading this, or if you simply want to support the fight for accountability and justice in the crucial arena of civil rights and Police abuse of power, I would ask you to post a 5 star review. Each review not only supports me, but also makes it easier for others in need of no- nonsense expertise to find this site. Thank you for taking part in that effort.
You must be logged in to post a comment.