Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of notice of the decision to make a deportation order, the making of the deportation order, and the detention on foot of it are essential steps in the same transaction. The detention depends for its legality on the lawfulness of the deportation itself. Absent a lawful basis for the making of a deportation order, it is not possible to breathe legal life into the decision to detain.’
Judges:
Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Kitchin
Citations:
[2020] UKSC 7, [2020] INLR 376, [2020] AC 698, [2020] 3 All ER 353, [2020] 2 WLR 611, [2020] WLR(D) 112, UKSC 2018/0140
Links:
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 07 Oct 2019 am Video, SC 7 Oct 2019 pm Video, SC 8 Oct 2019 pm Video
Statutes:
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 72(4)(a), Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – DN (Rwanda) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 22-Feb-2018
The court considered its freedom to depart from an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal . .
Cited – EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KC (South Africa) v Same CA 26-Jun-2009
The respondent had listed criminal offences committed by the applicants in support of his decision to have them removed and returned home.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The list provided included offences which were not of the serious nature . .
Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Wrongly Decided – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Draga CA 21-Jun-2012
Whether a distinction could be drawn between, on the one hand, a decision to make a deportation order and the making of the order, and, on the other, the decision to detain. It was argued that a flaw in the decision to make a deportation order/the . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 . .
Doubted – Mohammed Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Office and Another CA 5-Jul-1994
The revocation of a deportation order does not make a detention pending deportation retrospectively unlawful. . .
Cited – ID and others v The Home Office (BAIL for Immigration Detainees intervening) CA 27-Jan-2005
The claimants sought damages and other reliefs after being wrongfully detained by immigration officers for several days, during which they had been detained at a detention centre and left locked up when it burned down, being released only by other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.648272