Asylum seekers had been detained on arrival in the UK, and then released. They challenged the propriety of the detention. The policy was that detention was appropriate where entry had been achieved through breach of immigration control, and did not depend upon whether the detainee might abscond. It appeared that the system worked for the administrative convenience of making speedy decisions, and not because he has done anything which might usually be considered as a justification for depriving him of his liberty. None of the detainees had been told why they were being held, and misleading reasons for detention were recorded. The detention required justification under article 5 of the Convention. It would be artificial to suggest that detention was for the purposes of art 5(1)(f), and the detention was unlawful. To be lawful, detention must be justified for each individual under Article 5.1(f).
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v A Special Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte B Admn 17-Dec-1997
Kay J referred to the Secretary of State’s policy documents on the detention and removal of failed asylum seekers and emphasised the need for a careful reappraisal by the Secretary of State in the light of changing circumstances. . .
Cited – Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .
Appealed to – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Saadi, Maged, Osman, Mohammed CA 19-Oct-2001
The Secretary appealed against a decision that the detention of certain asylum applicants was unlawful. The detention was for a limited period, but he had put forward no reason for the detentions of the individuals.
Held: The Act authorised . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Saadi, Maged, Osman, Mohammed CA 19-Oct-2001
The Secretary appealed against a decision that the detention of certain asylum applicants was unlawful. The detention was for a limited period, but he had put forward no reason for the detentions of the individuals.
Held: The Act authorised . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.166281