This week’s post highlights how even the courts can get the law wrong when it comes to the fundamental right to liberty. After a Magistrates’ Court unlawfully detained my client during an adjourned bail hearing, and then wrongly treated his subsequent compensation claim as a mere complaint, my specialist team pursued proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, ultimately securing a substantial four-figure settlement plus legal costs.
Content Authenticity Statement
100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.
Back to School: Suing the Court for Damages
As we start a new “school year” I thought I would offer this reminder of how even the Judiciary and Court Managers, the supposed ultimate authorities of law and rules, sometimes needs to be taken back to school themselves.
When Can a Magistrates’ Court Detain Someone Under the Bail Act 1976?
My client Peter appeared before the Magistrates’ Court for a bail hearing pursuant to S.7(4) of the Bail Act 1976, which commenced at or around 15:45hrs.
At or around 16:50hrs, the Court adjourned the hearing to the following day, and Peter was removed from the courtroom and escorted to the cells.
The Magistrates intention was that Peter should spend the night in custody, pending resumption of the bail hearing in the morning – but I have written many times before about how jealously the law guards the fundamental principle of personal liberty, through both the tradition of the Common Law and the modern legislation of the Statute book, and how the powers-that-be, including the judiciary, can only take that liberty away from us in clearly prescribed and defined circumstances under the law.
When an Adjourned Bail Hearing Becomes Unlawful Detention
The fact was, that this Magistrates Court had no power to detain Peter during an “adjournment” – this mistake was belatedly recognised by the Court, and Peter was then brought back before the Magistrates at 18.05hrs and the hearing resumed and continued until around 19.40, when Peter was released, subject to varied bail conditions.
Section 7(5) of the Bail Act provides as follows –
A justice of the peace before whom a person is brought under subsection (4) above may, subject to [subsections (5A) and (6)] below, if of the opinion that that person—
(a)is not likely to surrender to custody, or
(b)has broken or is likely to break any condition of his bail,
remand him in custody or commit him to custody, as the case may require, or alternatively, grant him bail subject to the same or to different conditions, but if not of that opinion shall grant him bail subject to the same conditions (if any) as were originally imposed.
Section 7 of the Bail Act: The Limits of the Court’s Power to Remand
In other words, the Court could only remand Peter in custody if it was conclusively of opinion “a” or “b” – and as it had as yet reached no opinion, it lacked any power to order my client’s detention other than for the duration of the hearing – and certainly not during a purported adjournment, when the hearing was explicitly not taking place. The Court either had to continue the hearing until it formed its opinion; or else order Peter’s release.
As neither of those things had happened between 16.50 – 18.05, the Court was liable for my client’s false imprisonment.
False Imprisonment by the Courts: When Judicial Errors Breach the Right to Liberty
The failure of the Magistrates themselves to understand the proper implementation of the Bail Act and the limitations of their own power, was then compounded by another ‘schoolboy error’ (and one which I see very commonly in my dealings with the Court Service). When Peter initially sent a letter of claim to the Court, alleging false imprisonment and a breach of his right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court’s Legal Team Manager acknowledged receipt of the letter, but stated that it would be treated as a “complaint” i.e not a formal claim.
This error by the Court – which occurs so often that I actually consider it may be a deliberate tactic – is particularly galling as it is the very Court Procedure Rules themselves which lay down the strict “pre-action protocols” governing how parties must present and respond to compensation claims. By treating the letter as a mere complaint, the Court could avoid the strict rules requiring a detailed response and pre-action disclosure of documents, and potentially ‘buy off’ the claim much more cheaply.
Taking Legal Action Against the Court for False Imprisonment
Thankfully, Peter knew his rights, and soon enlisted the representation of Elliot Smallshaw, another of the expert actions against the Police solicitors in my specialist team.
Acting by way of a “no win, no fee” agreement, Elliot challenged the Court’s failure to properly address Peter’s claim, and when they denied liability, had no hesitation in advising him to bring civil proceedings.
Ministry of Justice Agrees to Pay Compensation for Unlawful Detention
I am pleased to confirm that this claim was swiftly settled, with the Ministry of Justice (who are ultimately responsible for the errors of the Magistrates Court) agreeing to pay Peter substantial damages, plus his legal costs.
Why the Right to Liberty Must Be Protected – Even for Short Periods of Detention
That this matter was about much more than a ‘technicality’ is reflected in the fact that this was a four-figure settlement; scrupulous respect for personal liberty and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment is the hallmark of a democratic society. False imprisonment by executive or judicial authorities should never have to be shrugged off in any circumstances, not even when it is ‘accidental’ and relatively short-lived; otherwise, we are at the thin end of a wedge of erosion against those liberties we hold so dear.
Peter was quite right to stand up for his rights in this situation, and I am proud that my team was here to help him teach the Court some valuable lessons – about how to follow its own rules.
My client’s name has been changed
How you can help
This blog has grown through the trust of readers and clients rather than through aggressive marketing or paid promotion. If you feel this article offers genuine insight or practical value, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your feedback plays a meaningful role in helping others identify experienced, specialist advice when it counts. Thank you.
Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor
Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation
You must be logged in to post a comment.