Detention Action v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Jul 2014

The claimant challenged the lawfulness of the policy and practice applied by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the operation of the Detained Fast Track, DFT. This is the policy for the detention of some asylum seekers, while their asylum claims are determined first by the SSHD, and then while they appeal if the claim is refused. They are detained on the basis that their claim and any appeal can be determined quickly. In summary, Detention Action contends that the DFT system as now operated is so unfair as to be unlawful, and it is unlawful at both common law and as a breach of Article 5 (1)(f) ECHR.
Held: The system (as operated) did work unfairly and thus unlawfully but only in a specifically limited way. Despite expressing concerns about the screening process and the way in which the system applied to vulnerable groups such as the victims of torture or trafficking, Ouseley J’s only finding of an unacceptable risk of claims being processed unfairly was that: ‘in too high a proportion of cases and in particular for those which might be sensitive, the conscientious lawyer does not have time to do properly what might need doing.’

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2245 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 310

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromDetention Action, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 9-Oct-2014
The court was asked as to the application of the fast track detention system imposed by the respondent. The court now heard an expedited appeal against a decsion that it was unlawful. . .
Appeal fromDetention Action, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
The claimant charity assisting asylum seekers challenged the system of detaining applicants under a fast track system. The charity had succeeded, but only in part and now argued that once the judge had decided that the manner in which the DFT was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.533950