Rapheael Olufemi Oluponle v The Home Office

13 December 2023

[2023] EWHC 3188 (KB)

High Court

A man was lawfully detained for almost 4 months because he had previously escaped from immigration and was about to be deported. But the government made a mistake with his asylum claim and kept him locked up for another 2 months longer than they should have. A judge said this was wrong and made the government pay him £20,000.

Key Facts

•Claimant, a Nigerian national, detained by the Home Office for 182 days (May 4, 2016 - November 2, 2016).
•Claimant's 2006 conviction for using a counterfeit passport and absconding after release on bail.
•Claimant applied for a residence card and settlement in his true name in 2008, without disclosing his 2006 conviction.
•In 2013, claimant applied to revoke the deportation order, disclosing his true identity.
•In 2016, claimant was detained again; he filed a last-minute asylum claim, which was initially certified under s. 96(1) NIAA, then withdrawn.
•The Home Office admitted the initial certification was unlawful due to insufficient detail from the asylum interview.

Legal Principles

Tort of false imprisonment requires proof of imprisonment and absence of lawful authority.

R (Lumba) v Secretary State of for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12

Lawful detention under Paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 is subject to common law limits (Hardial Singh principles) and public law rules.

Immigration Act 1971

Hardial Singh principles: intention to deport, reasonable detention period, release if deportation unlikely within reasonable period, and acting with reasonable diligence and expedition.

R v Governor of Durham Prison ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] I WLR 704

Assessment of reasonable detention considers factors like detention length, obstacles to deportation, Secretary of State's actions, detention conditions, effect on detainee and family, risk of absconding, and risk of re-offending.

R(I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888

Risk of absconding is paramount but not a trump card; assessment must be careful and consider the circumstances.

Fardous v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 931

Public law breach must be material and bear on the decision to detain.

Lauzika, R (On The Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1045 (Admin)

Section 96(1) NIAA certification requires considering notification of appeal rights, whether the new claim could have been raised earlier, satisfactory reasons for not raising it earlier, and whether certification is appropriate.

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Home Office policy on detention emphasizes sparing use, shortest necessary period, consideration of alternatives, and individual case merits.

Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, Chapter 55

Outcomes

Claimant's detention lawful from May 4, 2016 to September 3, 2016.

Imminent deportation, history of absconding, and risk of undermining immigration controls outweighed other factors.

Claimant's detention unlawful from September 4, 2016 to November 2, 2016.

Unreasonable delay in addressing the asylum claim after it became apparent it could not be certified, and failure to act with reasonable expedition.

Damages awarded to claimant: £20,000.

Compensatory damages for 60 days of unlawful detention, considering the conditions and effects on the claimant.

Rapheael Olufemi Oluponle v The Home Office

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Ebou Jasseh v The Home Office

Dorothy Moradi v The Home Office

JXL, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Ibukun Adebowale Adegboyega v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Audi Dama Masozera Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home Department