SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 25 Jan 2008

The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the legality of returning failed asylum applicants to Zimbabwe.
Held: Despite allegations of acting unlawfully, the defendant had failed even to try to justify the detention with evidence. The defendant was under a duty to keep the detention under review but had failed disgracefully: only four out of twenty two required reviews were conducted properly. The conduct of reviews was necessary to make the detention lawful. There was casual mendacity in informing the detainee of the reasons for decisions before the decision was made. It was correct to allow for the risk of the claimant absconding, but the defendant had not previously relied on that ground. Whilst the claimant was entitled to damages, he should not be released.
Munby J
[2008] EWHC 98 (Admin)
Bailii
Immigration Act 1971 Sch 3, Detention Centre Rules 2001
Citing:
CitedRegina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
CitedKhera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
CitedLiversidge v Sir John Anderson HL 3-Nov-1941
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents.
Held: The . .
CitedSomerset’s Case, Somerset v Stewart 1772
Habeas Corpus Granted to Slave
Somerset, a slave purchased by the defendant in Virginia, had been brought to England, but then confined on board a ship. He brought a writ for habeas corpus.
Held: The plea in defence was insufficient. Lord Mansfield ordered an African slave . .
CitedAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department; LK v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Apr-2006
Where an asylum applicant could return voluntarily to his country of origin without there being any threat of persecution, there was nothing to base a claim that he was a refugee. . .
CitedTan 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’. . .
CitedI, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 28-Jun-2002
The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been . .
CitedD, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 22-May-2006
An asylum-seeker held at a detention centre was not given a medical examination within 24 hours of her arrival at the centre as required by Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. It was further claimed that transfers to Oakington Detention . .
CitedKhadir, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Jun-2005
The applicant who had entered England hidden in a lorry, claimed asylum, and had his claim rejected. It was said that as an Iraqi Kurd, he would be safe in the Kurdish area of Iraq. No safe means had been found of ensuring his return over some four . .
CitedHwez and Khadir v Secretary of State for the Home Departmentand Another Admn 29-Jul-2002
. .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Regina on the Application of Khadir CA 3-Apr-2003
The Secretary of State appealed an order requiring him to reconsider refusal of exceptional leave to remain. The applicant was an Iraqi Kurd. It was not possible to make immediate arrangements for repatriation after the order.
Held: The . .
CitedAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department; LK v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Apr-2006
Where an asylum applicant could return voluntarily to his country of origin without there being any threat of persecution, there was nothing to base a claim that he was a refugee. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
CitedHS (Returning Asylum Seekers) Zimbabwe CG IAT 29-Nov-2007
IAT Failed asylum seekers do not, as such, face a risk of being subjected, on return to Zimbabwe, to persecution or serious ill-treatment. That will be the case whether the return is voluntary or involuntary, . .
CitedRoberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary CA 26-Jan-1999
The claimant had been detained at 11.25pm. His detention was not reviewed by an inspector until 7.45am the next morning, although it had been considered in the interim at 1.45am by an officer of junior rank. The plaintiff sued for unlawful . .
CitedRegina (Konan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2004
The claimants alleged that their immigration detention had been unlawful.
Held: Collins J said: ‘Since the detention at least since 24 June 2002 was contrary to the defendant’s own policy as published in Chapter 38, it was unlawful. In so . .
CitedNadarajah and Amirhanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Dec-2003
The Secretary of State’s published policy was that, if legal proceedings were initiated, removal would not be treated as imminent even if it otherwise was. The Secretary of State also had an unpublished policy, namely that information that . .
CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex Parte Jeyeanthan Admn 3-Apr-1998
An appeal by the Home Secretary against a ruling that he had to use the same prescribed form as would be used by the asylum seeker. The use of a letter which omitted a substantial and important declaration was invalid. Lord Woolf MR made plain the . .
CitedA, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Jul-2007
The applicant had had his application for asylum rejected. Pending deportation, he had been held in custody. The court had found his detention unlawful.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The power to detain in such circumstances had . .
CitedBashir, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Nov-2007
B complained of the unreasonable length of time (32 months) for which had been detained pending deportation.
Held: Mitting J said: ‘What Toulson LJ did not address, because it was not necessary to address it on the facts, was whether or not a . .
CitedRegina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith; ex parte Grady CA 3-Nov-1995
Four appellants challenged the policy of the ministry to discharge homosexuals from the armed services.
Held: Where a measure affects fundamental rights or has profoundly intrusive effects, the courts will anxiously scrutinise the decision to . .
CitedMMH, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Sep-2007
The applicants challenged their continued detention pending their return to Iraq.
Held: Beatson J said: ‘In the present case there is a significant risk of absconding, but a risk of re-offending which the defendant accepts is not very high. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2021; Ref: scu.264058