The claimant sought damages, alleging: ‘oppressive questioning, unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, unlawful search of her home, theft and / or failure to secure her home premises, and the wrongful declaration by the UKBA that she was an illegal migrant subject to removal under Immigration Act 1971 s.10 provisions’ and theft. The court now considered the allegations disputed.
Held: The actions of the immigration officers went beyond the permitted scope of the warrant and it appears that they were always going to do so given the contents of the briefing. Also the officers had not recorded the caution of her when required. However the allegations over and above these were not established, and nor had the claimant shown any connection between the infractions and the damages claimed.
John Bowers QC
[2013] EWHC 2059 (QB)
Bailii
Immigration Act 1971 10, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(b)
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex Parte Bramley QBD 10-Nov-1999
When police officers executed a search warrant, it was not proper to remove articles at large, in order later to sift through them, and then to return material not covered by the warrant. There is no absolute prohibition against removing articles . .
Cited – Ghulam Yasim v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1996
The court rejected a submission that, in a civil claim, sections 76 to 78 PACE precluded reliance altogether upon any evidence by an interview undertaken without a prior caution. Those exclusionary provisions were confined, the Court made clear, to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Immigration
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513548