MTA (a protected party, by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor
[2023] EWHC 117 (KB)
MTA v The Lord Chancellor
13 August 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 965
Court of Appeal
A man with mental health issues was wrongly detained due to a court order. He sued the government. The government argued he should have appealed the order first. The court said that because the original court later agreed the order was wrong, the man didn't need to appeal first to sue for damages.
Key Facts
- •MTA, a young man with severe mental illness, was subject to a County Court injunction with a power of arrest under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
- •He was arrested and detained on three occasions for alleged breaches of the injunction.
- •On each occasion, he was found to lack capacity to understand the injunction, leading to his release.
- •The injunction was eventually set aside due to MTA's lack of capacity.
- •MTA, through his litigation friend, sued the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Lord Chancellor for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998, alleging unlawful detention under Article 5.
- •The Lord Chancellor applied to strike out the claim against him, arguing it was an abuse of process to bring proceedings without first appealing the injunction and remand orders.
- •Freedman J dismissed the Lord Chancellor's application.
- •The Lord Chancellor appealed that decision.
Legal Principles
A period of detention is lawful only if it complies with Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unlawful detention occurs if the court acted without jurisdiction, there was a gross and obvious irregularity, the order lacked proper legal foundation, detention was arbitrary, or there were serious Article 6 breaches.
LL v Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 237
Any step taken before a protected party (lacking capacity) has a litigation friend has no effect unless the court orders otherwise.
CPR rule 21.3(4)
Claims for damages under section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of judicial acts can usually be brought as free-standing proceedings in the High Court, not solely through appeal or judicial review. However, bringing such proceedings without appealing may be an abuse of process.
Mazhar v Lord Chancellor [2019] EWCA Civ 1558
A collateral challenge to a court decision is an abuse of process unless the original decision has been found to be of no effect by the original or a superior court.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Lord Chancellor's appeal.
The County Court had already found the impugned orders to be of no effect due to MTA's lack of capacity. Therefore, the claim against the Lord Chancellor was not a collateral attack on a valid judicial decision and did not constitute an abuse of process. There is no blanket rule requiring an appeal before bringing free-standing proceedings under section 9(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for damages related to unlawful detention.
Similar Cases
Kieran Upadrasta v The Commissioner of the City of London Police
[2023] EWHC 1853 (KB)
Bryn Duval Richards v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2681 (KB)
Darykie Ramos Molina, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook
[2024] EWHC 816 (Admin)
Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] UKSC 21