Immigration detention proper after prison release
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that he had unlawfully detained the applicant. The applicant had been detained on release from prison pending his return to Zimbabwe as recommended by the sentencing judge under section 6 of the 1971 Act. The court had found that the detention had continued for a longer period than was proper and that the appellant had failed almost entirely to review the detention as required by law. The Secretary of State had failed to carry out regular reviews following detention, as required by the Detention Centre Rules.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The decision in Roberts was in the context of a law making a review legal pre-requisite of detention. That did not apply here. The reviews were not absolutely essential for the detentions. The claimant had been lawfully detained in accordance with the Hardial Singh principles.
Laws LJ, Keene LJ, Longmore LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1204, [2009] 2 All ER 365, [2009] 1 WLR 1527
Bailii, Times
Immigration Act 1971 6, Detention Centre Rules 2001 9(1), European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .
Cited – Nadarajah and Amirhanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Dec-2003
The Secretary of State’s published policy was that, if legal proceedings were initiated, removal would not be treated as imminent even if it otherwise was. The Secretary of State also had an unpublished policy, namely that information that . .
Cited – Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary CA 26-Jan-1999
The claimant had been detained at 11.25pm. His detention was not reviewed by an inspector until 7.45am the next morning, although it had been considered in the interim at 1.45am by an officer of junior rank. The plaintiff sued for unlawful . .
Cited – D, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 22-May-2006
An asylum-seeker held at a detention centre was not given a medical examination within 24 hours of her arrival at the centre as required by Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. It was further claimed that transfers to Oakington Detention . .
Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Cited – Winterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2) HL 27-Jul-2000
The release date for a prisoner was calculated correctly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case law required the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained too long. The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict . .
Cited – I, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 28-Jun-2002
The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Appeal From – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.277566