B complained of the unreasonable length of time (32 months) for which had been detained pending deportation.
Held: Mitting J said: ‘What Toulson LJ did not address, because it was not necessary to address it on the facts, was whether or not a period of detention initially lawful could become unlawful by reason of it being unreasonably protracted.’ Of the 32 months only 23 came to be counted since the first 9 months were the result of an appeal and other matters for which the claimant was responsible, but ’23 months on any view must be at or near to the top of the period during which detention can lawfully occur.’
Judges:
Mitting J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 3017 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Jul-2007
The applicant had had his application for asylum rejected. Pending deportation, he had been held in custody. The court had found his detention unlawful.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The power to detain in such circumstances had . .
Cited by:
Cited – SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jan-2008
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the . .
Cited – MH, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 14-Oct-2010
The claimant complained that his administrative detention for over 40 months had been unlawful. He now appealed against a finding that it had been lawful save for the final two months.
Held: The appeal failed. The period of time for which he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.262944
