Immigration Detention, Asylum and Deportation

Full details of our notable immigration and asylum cases can be found on our immigration news pages.

High Court declares Home Secretary’s investigation into immigration detention abuse at Brook House inadequate (2019)
In a landmark judgment the High Court declared that a proposed Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) investigation instigated by the Home Secretary into serious mistreatment and abuse of detainees at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), by officers of the private security firm G4S, is inadequate and lacks the powers to comply with the UK government’s investigative duties under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

KO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) [2018] 1 WLR 5273
A Supreme Court test case on the proper interpretation of the reasonableness of removal of children from the UK and in the context of deportation whether that was ‘unduly harsh’ on the child and the meaning of that phrase within section 117 A to D of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Further advice is being given on an application to ECtHR. See coverage in Free Movement.
 
Conditions at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (2018)
Successful legal challenges against the Home Office on behalf of claimants relating to conditions at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre. On 1 February 2018, the High Court found that the Home Secretary had failed to consider how conditions might discriminate against Muslim detainees who were forced to pray next to uncovered toilets. The High Court also found the Home Secretary’s approach to allow smoking in Brook House was “unlawful”.  The case was reported widely in the media including BBC, The Guardian and The Independent.

Court of Appeal – detention of asylum seekers unlawful under Article 28 Dublin III (2018)
In a majority decision, the Court of Appeal delivered a significant judgment affecting the lawfulness of detention of asylum seekers subject to the Dublin III Regulation. Garden Court counsel represented the appellants who were entitled to damages for the tort of false imprisonment. See coverage in The Guardian.

“A child is foremost a child before he or she is a refugee”  
Court of Appeal provides new guidance to tribunals to ensure children and vulnerable persons have their voices heard in asylum proceedings. AM (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 1123

Supreme Court rules ‘Deport first, Appeal later’ system is unlawful.  
Landmark judgment which emphasised the importance of the right to an effective appeal. Arguably, it means that all previous removals under this ‘deport first, appeal later’ power were similarly unfair. Covered by the BBC and The Guardian.  R (Kiarie; Byndloss) v SSHD [2017] UKSC 42

High Court rules government redefinition of torture in immigration detention policy is unlawful
Represented the charity, Medical Justice, and two victims of gender-based violence who were detained in immigration detention. This test case challenged the adoption by the Home Secretary of a more restrictive definition of torture in breach of Articles 3 and 5 ECHR. The High Court found the Home Office policy to be unlawful. The judge ruled that hundreds of victims of torture have been wrongly locked up in immigration detention centres. See coverage in The Guardian.  

Failure of Secretary of State to have due regard to equality duties in considering asylum claims in detention. Test case challenging the lawfulness of the Home Office’s new procedure for deciding claims for asylum by people in immigration detention – the “Detained Asylum Casework” system. High Court ruled that the SSHD had breached the duty in the Equality Act to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination when implementing her policy. Covered by the Free Movement blog and the Electronic Immigration Network. Hossain and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1331 (Admin)

Test case representing 35 vulnerable child asylum seekers from Calais camp.  
Test case regarding 35 child asylum seekers pursuing legal action against the Government. The children were refused entry to the UK and are seeking written decisions and reasons for the determination that it was not in their ‘best interests’ to be relocated to the UK. More information via The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph and The Independent. ZS v Secretary of State for the Home Department

R (on the application of BA (Eritrea)) v SSHD : R (on the application of ST (Sri Lanka)) v SSHD (2016) EWCA Civ 458
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on the correct approach to evaluating the circumstances in which a doctor’s report under the Home Office’s Enforcement Instructions and Guidance Chapter 55 rule 35 could amount to independent evidence of torture for the purposes of deciding whether a failed asylum seeker should be detained pending deportation.

Successful judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to detain pregnant women 
Public interest challenge brought against the SSHD’s policy and practice of detaining pregnant women under immigration powers. The Home Office conceded the case, agreed to review its policy on pregnant women in detention, issue a new Detention Service Order and pay PA compensation for unlawful detention. Covered by The Guardian. PA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD)

Suspension of detained fast-track system.  
Successful challenge to the legality of the Detained Fast Track Asylum system leading to its suspension and the Home Secretary admitting the existing process was unfair and breached the Equality Act 2010 and the UK’s trafficking obligations. Covered by the BBC and The Guardian. R(JM and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (PU and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2014-2015)

ZSS v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1137 
Guideline case arising from two linked appeals on the correct construction of the Home Office’s policy on detaining children whose age are disputed. In dismissing the Home Office’s appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the trial judge that the Home Office policy required the Secretary of State to make necessary inquiries into the reasons for the conclusion of a local authority age assessment and to satisfy herself that it is a lawful assessment of age before she is entitled to treat the putative child as an adult.
 
Das v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 45; [2014] 1 WLR 3538
The Court of Appeal held that the threshold for the Home Office’s Enforcement Instructions and Guidance Chapter 55 for detaining those with a serious mental illness does not require the individual’s mental health to be so serious that it requires in-patient hospitalisation. In overturning the High Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal held that such a threshold, as held by the court below, was contrary to the humane objects and purpose of the policy.

Details about more of our high-profile immigration and asylum cases can be found on the news pages of our website.