We couldn't do that in the US. Some police departments have an unwritten policy of arresting people late on a Friday, so that they can be held the maximum amount of time before getting an arraignment hearing, where the charges may be summarily dropped because they were bogus to begin with. If you decide such arrests cannot trigger compensation for false imprisonment, the practice will not only continue, but increase, as a form of legal harassment. I'd give up the first hour in jail for free. That's plenty of time to put together an argument justifying the arrest, given that the arresting officer should have already had a reason prior to making it, and being an hour late is usually not ruinous. Either the lateness is justified by the arrest, or the fact of the arrest itself eclipses the offense of the tardiness.
What if there were a "speedy trial" clock? It ticks down faster (6x) between arrest and arraignment, when the accused is held in jail awaiting their initial hearing. It counts down more slowly (x/6) when the accused is released and preparing for trial. And it counts down at the baseline rate when the accused is arraigned and held in jail awaiting trial. The defense, and only the defense, can request that the time to trial be extended. If the case is dropped unilaterally, or the trial verdict is not guilty, the state is on the hook for the amount of time counted down off the trial clock.
So if the cops arrest you on Friday at 5 PM for the express purpose of keeping you in jail for the maximum amount of time before seeing a judge or magistrate on Monday morning, they piss off the prosecutors, who counted down 2 weeks off their clock for the 2.5 days spent in jail awaiting the initial hearing. And if the judge denies release because the prosecutors claim the accused is a danger or flight risk, they have to back up that assertion by throwing more resources into the pending trial before the clock runs out. Maybe the clock allows 30 days for someone arraigned within hours and held without bail, and 180 days for someone released pending trial.
If you don't want to bind up your court calendar, you release everyone who isn't dangerous, put extra effort into processing those held in jail pending trial--possibly preempting trials on lesser crimes--and try to make more deals when too many trials are running their clocks out at the same time. Prosecutors that lose too many cases to "failure to provide a speedy trial" motions and pay too many of the subsequent false imprisonment claims risk losing their jobs after the next election.
The New York system has a similar clock, but they allow the prosecution to pause it by engaging in dubious and deceptive practices. Not a good model. The problem is that the prosecution side gets no negative feedback for egregiously failing to honor the rights of the accused. They don't get checked when they commit an obvious wrong.
At the least, this would encourage more municipalities to have an on-call weekend magistrate.