Serdar Mohammed & Others v Secretary of State for Defence
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ,Lloyd Jones,Beatson LJJ |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Civ 843 |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: A2/2014/1862; A2/2014/4084; A2/2014/4086 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 30 July 2015 |
[2015] EWCA Civ 843
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
THE HON MR JUSTICE LEGGATT
[2014] EWHC 1369 (QB) and [2014] EWHC 3846 (QB)
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Lord Justice Lloyd Jones
and
Lord Justice Beatson
Case Nos: A2/2014/1862; A2/2014/4084; A2/2014/4086
James Eadie QC, Samuel Wordsworth QC, Karen Steyn QC, Marina Wheeler (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Ministry of Defence in Serdar Mohammed and for the Secretary of State for Defence in Qasim & others.
Richard Hermer QC, Ben Jaffey, Nikolaus Grubeck (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Respondent Serdar Mohammed
Shaheed Fatima, Paul Luckhurst (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Respondents Qasim, Nazim and Abdullah
Phillippa Kaufmann QC, Edward Craven (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Appellants (Rahmatullah and the Iraqi civilian claimants)
James Eadie QC, Karen Steyn QC, Ben Watson, Melanie Cumberland (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Respondents in Rahmatullah (Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office)
Derek Sweeting QC, James Purnell (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Respondent in the Iraqi civilian claimants' case (Ministry of Defence)
Hearing dates: 9 – 13 February 2015
Further Submissions: 18 and 20 February; 2, 19, 20 and 31 March; 9, 22 and 30 April and 5 May 2015.
Approved Judgment
| Para no | |
| I THE ISSUES AND SUMMARY | 1 |
| (1) The main appeal | 1 |
| (a) The central issue | 1 |
| (b) The two bases of SM's claim | 5 |
| (c) The position of the Secretary of State | 6 |
| (d) Summary of our conclusions in relation to the main appeal | 8 |
| (2) The conjoined appeals | 11 |
| (a) The PIL claimants | 12 |
| (b) The claim by Yunus Rahmatullah, Anamatullah Ali and the Iraqi civilian claimants | 17 |
| (c) The issue on act of state in the claim by Yunus Rahmatullah and the Iraqi civilian claimants | 23 |
| (d) Our conclusion | 27 |
| (3) The organisation of the judgment | 28 |
| II THE FACTS, FACTUAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LEGAL ASSUMPTIONS | 29 |
| (1) The facts in relation to SM's claim | 29 |
| (a) The original involvement of HM armed forces in Afghanistan | 29 |
| (b) The Bonn Agreement | 31 |
| (c) UN Security Council Resolution 1386 of 2001; the establishment of ISAF | 34 |
| (d) The Military Technical Agreement of January 2002 | 36 |
| (e) The command of ISAF | 37 |
| (f) The Memorandum of Understanding between the United Kingdom and Afghan Government made in 2006 | 41 |
| (2) The factual assumptions as to the detention of SM | 43 |
| (3) The legal assumptions as to SM's claim | 44 |
| (4) The factual assumptions as to the claims by Yunus Rahmatullah and the Iraqi civilian claimants | 46 |
| III THE LIABILITY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE AVAILABILITY OF UNITED NATIONS IMMUNITY | 49 |
| (1) ATTRIBUTION TO ISAF/UN | 50 |
| (a) The facts in relation to the control over SM's detention | 51 |
| (b) The applicable legal principles: Behrami/Saramati and Al-Jedda | 52 |
| (c) The judge's decision | 61 |
| (d) Did the UN Security Council exercise the requisite control over ISAF? | 62 |
| (e) Did ISAF authorise SM's detention? | 67 |
| (f) Did ISAF consent by acquiescence to the United Kingdom's detention practice? | 70 |
| (2) CAN THE SECRETARY OF STATE INVOKE THE IMMUNITIES OF THE UN? | 73 |
| IV THE PUBLIC LAW CLAIM: THE SCOPE OF THE ECHR AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW | 82 |
| (1) THE SCOPE OF THE ECHR AS APPLIED TO HM ARMED FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN | 83 |
| (a) The judge's conclusion | 84 |
| (b) The decision of the Strasbourg Court in Bankovic | 86 |
| (c) The decision in Al-Skeini | 91 |
| (d) The acceptance by the Supreme Court of the decision in Al-Skeini | 94 |
| (e) The difficulties in complying with the ECHR in the course of military operations | 95 |
| (f) The differing position in Canada | 98 |
| (g) The judge's decision | 99 |
| (h) The scope of the Human Rights Act 1998 | 103 |
| (i) Our conclusion | 105 |
| (2) THE RELATIONSHIP OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 107 |
| (a) Decisions of the International Court of Justice | 111 |
| (b) The judge's decision in relation to international humanitarian law as lex specialis | 114 |
| (c) The decision of the Strasbourg Court in Hassan (September 2014) | 116 |
| (d) The extension of international humanitarian law to a non-international armed conflict | 121 |
| V THE PUBLIC LAW CLAIM: LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO DETAIN | 125 |
| (1) POWER TO DETAIN UNDER THE LAW OF AFGHANISTAN | 127 |
| (a) The relevance of the law of Afghanistan | 127 |
| (b) The judge's findings on Afghan law as regards the claim for unlawful detention | 129 |
| (c) The submission of the Secretary of State on the appeal | 133 |
| (d) Our conclusion | 135 |
| (2) THE POWER UNDER THE UNSCRS | 138 |
| (a) UNSCR 1890 of 2009 | 139 |
| (b) The contention of the Secretary of State | 142 |
| (c) The judge's decision | 143 |
| (d) The scope of the authorisation to ISAF | 146 |
| (e) ISAF's detention policy | 149 |
| (f) The policy under which HM armed forces operated | 153 |
| (g) Did ISAF agree to that policy by acquiescence? | 157 |
| (h) Would the UK policy, if authorised by UNSCR 1890 of 2009, be a lawful derogation from Article 5 ECHR? | 158 |
| (3) POWER UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW | 164 |
| (a) Introduction | 164 |
| (i) The purpose of international humanitarian law | 164 |
| (ii) Two sources of international humanitarian law | 165 |
| (iii) Our approach to the Secretary of State's case | 166 |
| (b) Overview of the positions of the parties on international humanitarian law | 167 |
| (i) International armed conflict and non-international armed conflict distinguished | 167 |
| (ii) A third classification: an internationalised non-international armed conflict | 170 |
| (iii) The Secretary of State's case | 174 |
| (iv) The claimants' case | 175 |
| (v) The sources for the determination of the content of international humanitarian law | 176 |
| (c) Considerations supporting the judge's conclusions | 178 |
| (i) The omission from the Geneva Conventions of a power to detain in a non-international armed conflict | 178 |
| (ii) The role of domestic law in a non-international armed conflict | 182 |
| (iii) Academic commentaries | 183 |
| (iv) The UK Joint Service Manual | 184 |
| (d) Considerations supporting the Secretary of State's submissions | 188 |
| (i) A convergence of legal regimes in respect of international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts | 188 |
| (ii) The inapplicability of the domestic law of the troop contributing State | 189 |
| (iii) The fragmentation of legal regimes | 190 |
| (iv) The logic of international humanitarian law | 193 |
| (e) The overarching question | 194 |
| (f) Is it necessary to show a positive power to detain, or does an absence of prohibition suffice? | 195 |
| (g) The distinction between international humanitarian law derived from treaties and international humanitarian law derived from customary international law | 199 |
| (h) Implicit authority to detain derived from treaties: Common Article 3 and APII | 200 |
| (i) Implications from the language | 200 |
| (ii) The a fortiori implication from the nature and structure of international humanitarian law: the Catch-22 issue | 205 |
| (iii) Other "Catch-22" issues | 213 |
| (iv) Conclusion: no authority or power to detain under international humanitarian law derived from treaties | 214 |
| (i) Authority to detain derived from customary international law | 220 |
| (i) The requirements for the formation of customary international law | 220 |
| (ii) State practice and opinio juris | 222 |
| (iii) The Copenhagen principles | 223 |
| (iv) Post-hearing material about State practice | 228 |
| (v) Academic commentaries | 235 |
| (vi) The a fortiori argument in the context of customary international law | 237 |
| (vii) Conclusion: no authority or power to detain under international humanitarian law can be derived from customary international law | 242 |
| (j) Grounds of detention | 245 |
| (k) Conclusion on authority to detain derived from international humanitarian law | 251 |
| VI THE PUBLIC LAW CLAIM: PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS | 254 |
| (1) Introduction | 254 |
| (2) The procedures in the Detention Policies | 255 |
| (a) ISAF policy as set out in ISAF SOP 362 | 255 |
| (b) The United Kingdom's Detention policy as set out in UK SOI J3–9 | 258 |
| (3) The procedures used in SM's case | 269 |
| (4) The judge's decision | 272 |
| (5) The contentions of the parties as to the procedural requirements | 274 |
| (a) The Secretary of State's case | 274 |
| (b) The case of SM and the PIL claimants | 277 |
| (6) Our conclusions | 280 |
| (a) Introduction: the premise on which our conclusion is based | 280 |
| (b) The possible procedural safeguards | 283 |
| (c) Humane treatment and the right to be informed of the reason for detention | 284 |
| (d) The safeguard of a review of SM's detention by an impartial and objective authority | 285 |
| (e) Review of detention by an impartial and objective authority | 287 |
| (f) The opportunity of the detainee to participate in the reviews of his detention | 293 |
| (g) State practice as to reviews of detention | 294 |
| (h) The overall failure to meet the requisite procedural requirements | 295 |
| VII THE... |
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al-Waheed v Ministry of Defence; Mohammed v Ministry of Defence (No 2)
...UKSC 2 THE SUPREME COURT Hilary Term On appeals from: [2014] EWHC 2714 (QB) and [2015] EWCA Civ 843 Lord Neuberger, President Lady Hale, Deputy President Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Wilson Lord Sumption Lord Reed Lord Hughes Lord Toulson (1–4 Feb 2016) Lord Hodge (26 Oct 2016) Abd Ali Hameed ......
-
Kamil Najim Abdullah Alseran and Another v MRE and Others
...to give effect to the local tort law and that, on the assumed facts, there were no such grounds: see Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 843, [2017] AC 649, paras 352, 364, 377(2). However, in the first of its decisions given on 17 January 2017, the Supreme Court allowed a furthe......
-
Mohammed and Others v Ministry of Defence and another; Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence and another; Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence
...Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption Lord Hughes THE SUPREME COURT Hilary Term On appeals from: [2014] EWHC 3846 (QB) and [2015] EWCA Civ 843 Appellants (MOD in XYZ and ors) Derek Sweeting QC James (Instructed by The Government Legal Department) Appellants (MOD and FCO in Rahmat......
-
The Freedom and Justice Party and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (Interested Party) Amnesty International and Another (Interveners)
...however desirable, forward-looking and reflective of values it may be, is simply not accepted by other states". Thus in Serdar Mohammed v. Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 843; [2016] 2 WLR 247 (at [220]–[244]) the Court of Appeal felt unable to conclude that, in a non-intern......
-
Politics by other means: the battle over the classification of asymmetrical conflicts.
...[http://perma.cc/2JFQ-CNCV] (archived Jan. 27, 2016); Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Def. & Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2015] EWCA Civ 843 (U.K.), https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp content/uploads/2015/07/serdar-mohammed-v-ssd-yunus-rahmatullah-v-mod-andfco.pdf [http://perma.cc/5CGH-SX......
-
By all means necessary: A look at the reliance on United Nations Security Council resolutions as a basis for internment in non-international armed conflicts
...not authorise the detention of the character of 89 United Kingdom Supreme Cour t (Judgement on appeal from [2014] EWHC 2714 (GQ) and [2015] EWCA Civ 843) Serdar Mohammed (Respondent) v Ministry of Defence (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 2.90 European Convention for t he Protection of Human Rig hts ......
-
State Jurisdiction and the Permissiveness of International Law: Is the Lotus Still Blooming?
...Law Volume 1: Peace (9th edn, Oxford University Press 1992) 12. 71 Serdar Mohammed & Others v Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWCA (Civ) 843 [197]. 72 cf the definition of sovereignty provided by Max Huber in Island of Palmas (United States v The Netherlands), Reports of International......