Sir John Saunders v Ahmed Taghdi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 18 October 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 2785 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3375/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2021] EWHC 2785 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
SITTING AT MANCHESTER MAGISTRATES COURT
Manchester Magistrates Court
Crown Square, Manchester M60 1PR
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/3375/2021
Nicholas de la Poer QC for the Applicant
Richard Wright QC for the Respondent
Hearing date: 18.10.21
Judgment as delivered in open court at the hearing
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mr Justice Fordham
Note: This judgment was produced for the parties, approved by the Judge, after using voice-recognition software during an ex tempore judgment.
The issue before the Court engages the inherent jurisdiction described in Hanson v Carlino [2019] EWHC 1366 (Ch) at paragraphs 10 to 11 and 22 to 23. That case stands as authority, as is not contested before me, for the proposition that this Court has an inherent jurisdiction which extends to detention of the individual, in the context of a bench warrant and that individual's arrest, where the Court is acting to secure compliance with its Orders, applying tests of necessity and proportionality.
The background and circumstances are as follows. The Manchester Arena Inquiry (“the Inquiry”), which is ongoing in the same court building in which I am sitting, has resulted in a notice pursuant to s.21 of the Inquiries Act 2005 (“the Act”), dated 13 September 2021, requiring the Respondent to attend the Inquiry and give evidence on 21 October 2021. Following a response from the Respondent's solicitor on 29 September 2021, the Applicant – the Chair of the Inquiry – certified ‘threatened breach’ pursuant to s.36 of the Act. At a hearing in the High Court last Friday, 15 October 2021, Jacobs J – acting pursuant to s.36(2) of the Act – ordered the Respondent to attend the Inquiry at 9am on 21 October 2021. Jacobs J went on to direct, by means of a bench warrant, that there be a power of arrest of the Respondent if he were to breach the order requiring him to attend to give evidence. I have seen some of the materials that were before Jacobs J, but I have not needed to go into them in any detail. I am told that an ex tempore judgment was given, on Friday at around 12:30, a written version of which is (understandably) not yet available. Jacobs J, at that hearing, considered issues relating to the appropriateness of the order directing attendance to give evidence at the Inquiry. He also, and in particular, considered the necessity for the bench warrant, itself in the exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction described in the Hanson case.
At 10:15am this morning, the same judge – Jacobs J – on a ‘without notice’ application by the Applicant, issued a second bench warrant: for the Respondent to be arrested and brought before this Court where submissions could be made and considered as to next steps. That was in circumstances where the Respondent had been discovered by the Greater Manchester Police to have booked a flight to Vienna which was due to leave today at 1pm. Pursuant to the second bench warrant, the Respondent was arrested at Manchester airport. He has been detained and brought before this Court.
The matter came on before me at just after 2pm today, by way of what was at that stage a ‘mention’. That was in circumstances where it was appropriate – and in my judgment necessary – that the Respondent be represented before me, and by the same Leading Counsel who had appeared on his behalf at last Friday's hearing, this being something which – by listing the hearing for 3:30pm – could be secured. I am very grateful to Richard Wright QC who has attended before me at short notice and in those circumstances. I interpose at this point that I made a ‘hybrid hearing’ order to allow the hearing, which proceeded in-person, to be observed remotely by interested persons, a mode of hearing also used by this Court at last Friday's hearing.
I record and acknowledge that Mr Wright QC has addressed me, not only on points directly relevant to the question which I have to consider, but also has rightly reminded me of points which relate to the context in which that question arises. The Court in this case is dealing with an individual who has been deemed, by the Inquiry itself, to be a vulnerable witness. That is a position supported by a report from an expert psychiatrist. I am also told – and I accept for the purposes of today's hearing – that the vulnerability of the Respondent includes exacerbation through previous incarceration. In a case involving the liberty of the individual it is right and proper that those matters should specifically have been drawn to my attention. I have given this case anxious scrutiny, as is appropriate in such a context.
Having been assisted by Counsel on both sides, and having been provided with updating material by both advocates, I emphasise that this Court is addressing questions of necessity and proportionality based on the position as it appears to me, now, and “afresh”. I grapple with those questions of necessity and proportionality on that basis. Indeed, the Order (the second bench warrant) made earlier today by Jacobs J was expressly premised on the Applicant having submitted to the Court that later on, and at this hearing, representations would be made and considered as to appropriate next steps.
The position before me has necessarily been put forward by the advocates, but they have each done so on instructions. The position described to the Court includes the following.
i) At some stage on Friday 15 October 2021 the Respondent made bookings with Austrian Airways and with Ryanair.
ii) The Respondent's booking with Austrian Airways was a flight to Vienna from Manchester. It was due to take off on Sunday 17 October 2021 but at some stage that flight was deferred by one day to today. That booking was not only for the Respondent but included his sister who had been in the country for a family wedding with her children since 7 October 2021.
iii) The Respondent's booking with Ryanair involved two further flights. The first was a flight from Vienna to Palma in Majorca. The second was a flight from Palma to Manchester. The arrival in Manchester was due to be on Wednesday 20 October 2021. I am told that Greater Manchester Police have seen evidence of the flight from Vienna to Palma. Mr Wright QC tells me that that flight was also for 20 October 2021 so that, in effect, there were two ‘legs’ to the return from Vienna to Manchester. Mr Wright...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir John Saunders Chairman of the Manchester Arena Inquiry v Ben Romdhan (Previously known as Ismale Abedi)
...Ian Paisley Junior [2009] NIQB 40; Hanson v Carlino [2019] EWHC 136; Moore-Bick v Mills [2020] EWHC 618 (Admin); Saunders v Taghdi [2021] EWHC 2785 (Admin); Saunders v Taghdi [2021] EWHC 2878. 13 It was common ground that those cases variously decided that: (1) Whilst the decision of the ......