Kieran Upadrasta v The Commissioner of the City of London Police
[2023] EWHC 1853 (KB)
Surrey Police v PC & Ors
24 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1274 (Fam)
High Court
A mentally ill man was held in a police station because there was nowhere else to put him. The police had to go to court to get permission to keep him there. The judge said the different groups responsible for his care should have worked together better, and blamed the local authority for delays, ordering them to pay the legal costs.
Key Facts
- •PC (26 years old) arrested for criminal damage; police concerned about his mental health.
- •Initial assessment at hospital, prescribed lorazepam, then discharged to police station.
- •Subsequent concerns about PC's mental health led to detention under s136 MHA 1983.
- •Lack of available bed at place of safety; ongoing concerns about PC's mental state and legality of detention.
- •Police made urgent out-of-hours application to court to authorize continued detention.
- •Official Solicitor raised concerns about adequacy of care, legality of detention, and lack of communication between agencies.
Legal Principles
Deprivation of liberty must be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (Article 5(1) ECHR).
Article 5(1) ECHR
The Mental Health Act 1983 (Places of Safety) Regulations 2017 limit circumstances where police custody can be a place of safety.
The Mental Health Act 1983 (Places of Safety) Regulations 2017
Common law doctrine of necessity cannot be used to justify detention in this situation.
Judge's ruling
Cost orders in cases involving deprivation of liberty should consider the conduct of parties, outcome, and role of public bodies (Re GH and London Borough of Hillingdon v Neary).
Re GH (Mastectomy: Best Interests: Costs) [2023] EWCOP 50 and London Borough of Hillingdon v Neary & Ors [2011] EWHC 3522 (COP)
Guidance on applications to authorize deprivation of liberty in police stations under inherent jurisdiction or s4A MCA 2005.
Official Solicitor's Guidance
Outcomes
Court authorized deprivation of liberty under inherent jurisdiction.
Immediate risk to PC's life and limb; lack of alternative legal framework for detention.
Local authority ordered to pay Official Solicitor's costs.
Lack of proactive role by local authority, insufficient notice to Official Solicitor, inadequate communication between agencies.
Similar Cases
ER, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 3187 (Admin)
Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v JS & Anor (Schedule 1A Mental Capacity Act 2005)
[2023] EWCOP 33
IS (Bangladesh), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 3130 (Admin)
Conwy County Borough Council v PR & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam)