ER, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 3187 (Admin)
IS (Bangladesh), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
1 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3130 (Admin)
High Court
A man with serious mental health problems is being held in immigration detention. The judge thinks the government made mistakes in deciding to keep him there because they got some important facts wrong and didn't follow their own rules about protecting vulnerable people. The judge will decide if he should be released, but needs more information first to make sure the public is safe.
Key Facts
- •The claimant, IS (Bangladesh), was detained under immigration powers on 28 July 2023.
- •He has a long history of mental illness, including PTSD, recurrent depressive disorder, and ADHD.
- •He has a history of self-harm and suicide attempts, particularly during his current detention.
- •The claimant was convicted of sexual assault in 2015 and conspiracy to supply Class A drugs in 2023.
- •A deportation order was served on him in 2017.
- •Multiple Rule 35 reports were filed concerning his mental health, recommending release.
- •The Home Office's decision to detain him was challenged as unlawful under Hardial Singh principles and the Adults at Risk policy.
Legal Principles
Principles governing the grant of interim relief in judicial review proceedings.
American Cyanamid Company v. Ethicon Limited (1975) AC 396
Hardial Singh principles regarding the reasonableness of immigration detention.
R (Hardial Singh) v. Governor of Durham Prison [1984] 1 WLR 704
Article 5 ECHR (right to liberty and security).
ECHR
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life).
ECHR
Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy.
Home Office policy
Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 (reporting on special illnesses and conditions).
Detention Centre Rules 2001
Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (amendments to statutory detention provisions).
Illegal Migration Act 2023
Outcomes
The court found that the claimant has a real prospect of success in challenging the lawfulness of his detention.
The Home Office's decisions were based on inaccurate information regarding the appeal hearing date and failed to adequately apply the Adults at Risk policy and Rule 35 procedures. The claimant's deteriorating mental health and the risk of self-harm outweigh the immigration control and public protection concerns.
The application for interim relief (release from detention) was adjourned.
The court needed time to hear representations on proposed bail conditions to address concerns about accommodation, medical treatment, and the risk of reoffending or absconding.
Similar Cases
Nakrasevicius, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department
[2024] EWHC 1856 (Admin)
JXL, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 510 (Admin)
GVA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2838 (Admin)
Ebou Jasseh v The Home Office
[2024] EWHC 31 (KB)