The claimant’ sought substantial general, aggravated and exemplary damages for false imprisonment and damages under articles 5, 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act, ‘for her unlawful detention, for the malicious and deliberate bullying and ill-treatment that she suffered when she was interrogated in detention, for the concoction and fabrication of admissions that she was alleged to have made in interviews which were known by the interviewing IO to be false and the opposite of what she was answering and for her unlawful detention that was ultra vires, imposed for an ulterior purpose, whose imposition was an abuse of power and the decision for which was unreasonable, irrational and taken without considering what should have been considered and having considered what should not have been considered.’
Held: The claimant’s claim succeeds and she is awarded a total of 110,000 pounds in general and aggravated damages and as damages under the HRA and a further 15,000 pounds in exemplary damages.’
‘This case is a precautionary tale since it has arisen because an IO and a CIO considered that it was appropriate to manufacture evidence to secure what they considered to be the rightful outcome of an unlawful entry even though there was no basis for that belief and no evidence to support the proposed outcome of instantaneous removal of someone who had arrived in the UK with leave to enter. This outrageous behaviour was assisted by the unusual exemption granted for particular types of immigration control from the provisions of the Race Relations Act then in force that have been reproduced in the Equality Act since enacted and from a continuing failure to provide recording facilities for schedule 2 interviews. It was also assisted by lax implementation of measures designed to control unlawful behaviour by IOs and CIOs in implementing schedule 2 investigations and interviews.
It is to be deeply regretted that this behaviour was meted out to a wholly blameless family visitor who was an adult, female, vulnerable lone traveller whose sole purpose in entering the UK was to pay an extended family visit to her parents and other close members of her family who were permanently resident in the UK and three of whom were British nationals who she had not previously visited in the UK. For her, it was intended to be a family visit of a lifetime that turned into a nightmare of unimagined proportions. That nightmare was only rescued and brought to an end by her courage and determination and that of her family members with the assistance of the professional expertise of her counsel and legal representative. It is to be hoped that Radha and her family can now put these events behind them and resume a happy and contented family life albeit split between two continents.’
Anthony Thornton J
[2014] EWHC 501 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re Lambeth Cemetery ConC 28-Jul-2020
Resolution of Conflicts in Court decisions.
The petitioner sought the exhumation of his still born son so that he could be buried alongside his wife who had died several years later.
Held: There had been conflicting decisions as to what amounted to a good and proper reason for an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Human Rights, Immigration
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.535536
