Key Facts
- •Claimant, Ebou Jasseh, sought a declaration that he was falsely imprisoned/unlawfully detained by the Home Office during two periods of immigration detention.
- •First period: 15 September 2019 – 3 August 2020 (324 days)
- •Second period: 28 June 2021 – 15 September 2021 (80 days)
- •Claimant was convicted of rape in 2016 and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
- •Detention was pending deportation to The Gambia, but there were no enforced removals or Emergency Travel Documents (ETDs) available for Gambia for several years.
- •The Home Office's policy on detention of foreign national offenders (FNOs) and the Hardial Singh principles were central to the case.
- •The Home Office's internal reviews and Case Progression Panels' recommendations were inconsistent and often ignored.
Legal Principles
Hardial Singh Principles (Four principles for determining the lawfulness of detention pending deportation)
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704; R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245
Article 5 ECHR (Right to liberty and security of person)
Article 5 ECHR
Home Office Policy: Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (Version 26)
Defendant’s document “Enforcement Instructions and Guidance”, version 26
Home Office Policy: Detention Case Progression Panels
Defendant’s policy “Detention Case Progression Panels”, published 20 May 2020
Court as primary decision-maker on reasonableness of detention
R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 804
Outcomes
Unlawful detention from 30 January 2020 to 3 August 2020 (187 days)
Breach of Hardial Singh principles (ii) and (iii); no realistic prospect of deportation within a reasonable time after 16 January 2020; inadequate Home Office response to release referrals; adverse inference drawn from failure to call key witnesses.
Unlawful detention from 28 June 2021 to 15 September 2021 (80 days)
Breach of Hardial Singh principle (i); detention for unlawful purpose (release arrangements); breach of Hardial Singh principle (iii); no realistic prospect of deportation; high-handed and oppressive conduct in delaying accommodation arrangements.
Claimant entitled to substantial compensatory damages for both periods of unlawful detention.
Unlawful detention; failure to demonstrate lawful exercise of power.
Claimant entitled to aggravated damages for the second period of detention.
High-handed and oppressive conduct of the Home Office in frustrating the securing of accommodation; significant delays and contradictory actions.