Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Defence
United Kingdom Supreme Court
[2017] UKSC 1, [2017] UKSC 2 (2017)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
In April 2010, Taliban commander Serdar Mohammed (SM) (defendant) was captured by British forces in Afghanistan following a 10-hour firefight during which several people were killed or wounded. British forces detained SM in a military holding facility for over three months and then transferred SM to Afghan authorities. SM challenged aspects of his detention under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which provides that no person may be deprived of liberty except in six specified circumstances and as provided by law. SM also asserted a violation of Article 5(4) of the ECHR, under which detainees must be entitled to engage in proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detentions. SM asserted that he had no outside contact or access to legal assistance while in detention and thus had no practical way to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus or otherwise challenge the detention’s legality through an impartial internal-review proceeding. The trial court and court of appeal found, among other things, that British forces in Afghanistan had the authority to detain prisoners for no longer than 96 hours before turning the prisoners over to Afghan authorities. The British government appealed to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sumption, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

