Rapheael Olufemi Oluponle v The Home Office
[2023] EWHC 3188 (KB)
Ibukun Adebowale Adegboyega v Secretary of State for the Home Department
15 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2365 (KB)
High Court
A man was wrongly kept in a terrible immigration center for almost three months because the government messed up his paperwork. The judge said the center was awful, and the man got lots of money because he was treated badly and got sick because of it. He also got money for lost wages and the government’s bad behavior.
Key Facts
- •The Claimant, a Nigerian national, was unlawfully detained at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre for 88 days.
- •His detention stemmed from a wrongly denied EEA residence card application due to the Home Office's failure to properly consider submitted evidence.
- •The Claimant suffered ill-treatment and appalling conditions at Brook House, including a lack of privacy, poor hygiene, and exposure to drug use.
- •The Claimant experienced a relapse of PTSD symptoms following an arrest in 2023, triggered by the police uniform and environment.
- •The Home Office admitted liability for unlawful detention and breach of EEA law.
Legal Principles
Assessment of damages for wrongful detention should be sensitive to the facts, avoid mechanistic calculations, and use a reducing scale for time beyond the initial shock.
Thompson v Commissioner of Police [1998] QB 498; MK (Algeria) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 980; AXD v The Home Office [2016] EWHC 1617 (QB)
Aggravated damages are awarded for additional humiliation and injury to dignity caused by the defendant's conduct.
Thompson v Commissioner of Police [1998] QB 498; R (Diop) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 3420 (Admin); Santos v SSHD [2016] EWHC 609 (Admin)
Exemplary damages are available for oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional action by government servants; the conduct must be outrageous and call for exemplary damages to mark disapproval, deter, and vindicate the law.
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129; Muuse v SSHD [2009] EWHC 1886 (QB)
Article 3 ECHR prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment; ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity, assessed based on all circumstances.
Szafrański v Poland, case 17249/12; R (HA) Nigeria v SSHD [2012] EWHC 979 (Admin); Grant v Ministry of Justice [2011] EWHC 3379
Article 8 ECHR guarantees respect for private and family life; interference must be in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society; substantial prejudice must be shown.
Anufrijeva v London Borough of Southwark [2004] QB 1124
Weight to be given to hearsay evidence (like the Brook House Inquiry Report) is determined by considering factors such as reliability, practicality of witness production, and potential for misrepresentation.
Civil Evidence Act 1995, Section 4
Outcomes
£35,000 basic compensatory damages, £25,000 exemplary damages, and £15,000 aggravated damages for unlawful detention.
The length of detention, egregious conditions at Brook House, and the Defendant's conduct warranted substantial damages. The continuing psychological distress reduced the impact of the reducing scale typically applied.
£250 damages for trespass to the person.
The Claimant's exaggeration of the incident reduced credibility; however, the officers' actions were unjustified and caused distress.
£26,000 damages for violation of Article 3 ECHR.
Cumulative effect of poor conditions at Brook House, including lack of privacy, poor hygiene, exposure to drug use, and the systemic nature of the failings, met the minimum level of severity for inhuman and degrading treatment.
£25,000 damages for post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Court accepted Professor Elliott's expert opinion that the Claimant suffered moderate PTSD, corroborated by medical records and the Claimant's reaction to the 2023 arrest.
£4,000 damages for CBT treatment.
Acknowledging the risk of relapse and need for ongoing treatment, 16 sessions of CBT were deemed necessary.
£38,955 for loss of earnings and £30,000 exemplary damages for breach of EEA rights; no aggravated damages.
The Defendant's prolonged and deliberate disregard for the Claimant's EEA rights warranted exemplary damages. Aggravated damages were deemed redundant due to overlap with other awards.
No damages for Article 8 ECHR violation.
The Court found that compensation for this was already covered by previous awards.