High Court Upholds Hardial Singh Principles in Ebou Jasseh v The Home Office - Invalidating Unlawful Detention and Awarding Damages

Citation: [2024] EWHC 31 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

The High Court of Justice case of Ebou Jasseh v The Home Office [2024] EWHC 31 (KB) provides a thorough examination of the legality of detention under UK immigration law, specifically in relation to the Hardial Singh principles. This case involves two separate periods of detention faced by the claimant, Ebou Jasseh, and scrutinizes the Home Office’s adherence to both statutory obligations and its own policy framework.

Key Facts

Ebou Jasseh, a Gambian national, was detained twice by the Home Office on the premises of facilitating his removal from the UK. The first detention spanned from 15 September 2019 to 3 August 2020, totaling 324 days, and the second from 28 June 2021 to 15 September 2021, totaling 80 days. Jasseh sought a declaration that he had been falsely imprisoned and/or unlawfully detained in breach of the Hardial Singh principles and Article 5 ECHR.

The Hardial Singh principles establish the conditions under which administrative detention pending deportation is permissible. They posit:

  1. The Secretary of State must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose.
  2. The deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
  3. If it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect deportation within a reasonable period, the power of detention should not be exercised.
  4. The Secretary of State should act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal.

Under Article 5 of the ECHR, everyone has the right to liberty, and no one should be deprived of it except in accordance with the law and in cases such as the lawful arrest or detention of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

The court also considered the Defendant’s policy document “Enforcement Instructions and Guidance” and the “Detention Case Progression Panels” policy. Both documents reiterate the importance of acting promptly and the presumption in favor of release unless there are compelling reasons for detention.

Outcomes

The Court found that:

  • For the first period of detention, Jasseh’s detention became unlawful after 30 January 2020. The evidence did not indicate that the Defendant could or would have been able to deport Jasseh within a reasonable time, specifically given the situation with The Gambia not accepting returns.
  • For the second period of detention, the detention for the purpose of release arrangements was not lawful under the Hardial Singh principles and Article 5 ECHR.
  • The Defendant’s actions were found to have been high-handed and obstructive regarding sourcing accommodation for Jasseh post-detention, meriting aggravated damages for this second period.

The court consequently ruled that Jasseh is entitled to substantial damages for the period of unlawful detention, plus aggravated damages from 28 June 2021 to 15 September 2021.

Conclusion

In Ebou Jasseh v The Home Office, the court applied established legal principles regarding immigration detention in the UK, reiterating that detention must not only serve the purpose of deportation but must also be enacted within a reasonable timeframe—a concept firmly rooted in the Hardial Singh principles. Furthermore, the case showcased the Judiciary’s cognizance of the conduct of the Home Office, especially when it deviates from its policies and standard procedures, leading to the imposition of aggravated damages. The judgment serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements governing administrative detention and highlights the court’s role in safeguarding individuals’ liberty rights.