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 detention up to the point where a decision was made. The Act empowered detention not for the purpose of examination or for the purpose of deciding whether to give or refuse leave to enter, but pending those events. It was simply to prevent a person entering without leave. The court doubted that detention was necessary to ensure effective and speedy processing of asylum applications, but that was speculation. It was impossible to condemn as irrational the subjection of those asylum seekers whose applications might be rapidly resolved to short-term of detention to ensure that the regime operated without dislocation. Article 5.1(f) recognised the state’s right to prevent unauthorised admission by detaining the person seeking to enter.
Lord Phillips MR said that lawful exercise of statutory powers can be restricted, according to established principles of public law, by government policy and the legitimate expectation to which such policy gives rise.
Judges:
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Waller
Citations:
Times 22-Oct-2001, Gazette 15-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1512, [2002] 1 WLR 356
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (on the application of Baram etc) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Sep-2001
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 . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina (on the application of Baram etc) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Sep-2001
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 . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166634