Ebou Jasseh v The Home Office
[2024] EWHC 31 (KB)
JXL, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
9 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 510 (Admin)
High Court
A man was held for deportation for two years. A judge said that wasn't fair because the government didn't show they could actually deport him quickly. The government was too slow and didn't properly explain why they needed to keep him. So, the judge ordered that he be released unless the government can quickly deport him.
Key Facts
- •Claimant, a Jamaican national, subject to a 2018 deportation order, has been in immigration detention for 25 months.
- •Claimant was convicted of sexual assault in 2017 and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
- •Claimant made asylum claims in December 2019 and May 2022, both subsequently withdrawn.
- •Claimant expressed willingness to return to Jamaica multiple times, then reversed his decision.
- •The legality of the Claimant's detention over a two-year period is challenged.
- •The Home Office assessed the Claimant as medium/high risk of absconding and re-offending.
Legal Principles
Four principles governing immigration detention: intention to deport, reasonable detention period, cessation of detention if deportation is unlikely within a reasonable period, and acting with reasonable diligence.
Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704, R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 888
Sufficient prospect of removal is needed to warrant continued detention; the longer the detention, the greater the certainty and proximity of removal required.
R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1112
A period of grace is allowed for making arrangements after it becomes apparent removal is impossible within a reasonable period.
AC (Algeria) v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 36
The court assesses the facts, including risk of re-offending and absconding, and considers facts known to the defendant without hindsight.
AXDv Home Office [2016] EWHC 1133(QB), R(Fardous) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 931
Time spent on hopeless legal challenges carries minimal weight in determining reasonable detention.
Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12
Risk of absconding and refusal of voluntary repatriation are important factors in determining the reasonableness of detention. Detention due to refusal to leave is the individual's own making.
R(A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 804
Outcomes
Claimant's detention was unlawful for significant periods.
The court found that the Home Office failed to demonstrate a sufficient prospect of removal within a reasonable timeframe for much of the two-year detention period. The asylum claims, while not strong, were not considered hopeless. The risk assessments were deemed inadequate and lacked sufficient justification. The Home Office's actions were often slow and lacked proper reasoning.
Order for Claimant's release.
Claimant's detention is deemed unlawful due to lack of sufficient prospect of imminent removal and insufficient justification for continued detention given the length of time already served.
Similar Cases
Rapheael Olufemi Oluponle v The Home Office
[2023] EWHC 3188 (KB)
Rupert Junior Geddes v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 66 (Admin)
IS (Bangladesh), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 3130 (Admin)
GVA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2838 (Admin)