Our Immigration Detention Cases
We have taken successful cases for immigration detainees concerning the legality of their detention including in particular, the manner in which the Immigration & Nationality Service screens detainees in respect of their medical and other needs.
R (Kullas) v SSHD, AC 2009
The Administrative Court found referring age dispute cases for criminal prosecution without determination as to age is unlawful.The Secretary of State had operated an unlawful practice of referring individuals to the CPS as adults for a criminal offence under section 2 Asylum (Treatment of Claimants) Act in circumstances where the UKBA had conducted a cursory age assessment of the individual.
R (K) v SSHD, CA 2007
The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that there was no duty on the Secretary to make further inquiries where there is physical evidence of torture.
R (D and K) v SSHD, AC 2006
It was found that there was an accepted and prolonged failure on the part of the Home Office and the private company responsible for the management of Oakington Detention Centre to comply with the requirement of the Detention Centre Rules to ensure all detainees had a medical assessment within 24 hours of their arrival in detention. This systemic failure gave rise to a claim for unlawful detention on the part of the two claimants on the basis that had such assessments taken place they would have led to a report which would in turn have constituted independent evidence of torture. Had such a report been made Home Office policy prohibiting the detention of those with evidence of torture would then have required their release from the fast track and detention.
ID and others v Home Office, CA 2005
This case clarified that where an immigrant has been detained under immigration legislation s/he has an entitlement to bring a private law action for false imprisonment on the basis that the detention was unreasonable and/or in breach of policy.
FL v Home Office, HC 2005
Substantial settlement obtained for the Claimant for a detention under Immigration Act powers following the conclusion of a criminal sentence where no steps were taken to deport him.
R (Nampewo) v SSHD, AC 2005
A writ of habeas corpus was granted in this case ordering the release of the Claimant who had been on bail and was detained without access to the Court when her removal became imminent. The order made was for damages to be assessed if not agreed for the unlawful detention.
R (Sow) v SSHD, AC 2005
The Claimant was released from detention following an application for habeas corpus. The Defendant accepted that the Claimant had been unlawfully detained and that damages should be assessed if not agreed.
A v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Central London County Court 2005
Settlement of £5,250 for a claim in false imprisonment and breach of the Race Relations Act for a six hour detention on suspicion of being an overstayer when the Claimant attended the police station to report his Nigerian passport lost and provided the arresting officer with proof of his lawful status in the UK.
N and others v Group 4, HC 2005
A settlement was obtained on behalf of number of detainees regarding their treatment and the conditions of their detention following the fire at Yarl’s Wood in 2002, the terms of which are confidential.
M v Home Office, HC 2005
A settlement of £15,000 damages was obtained in an action involving a challenge to the Home Office policy of detention of Zimbabwean asylum seekers following the suspension of removals to Zimbabwe in January 2002.
LM v Home Office, HC 2005
Settlement reached in the sum of £16,000 in a damages action by a refugee whose detention was continued after a significant change in the strength of his asylum claim.
T v Home Office, HC 2005
Immigration Act detainee awarded £17,500 compensation for a period of three months unlawful imprisonment following several months lawful detention. A case where there was a failure by Home Office to review detention in light of change of relevant facts.
N v Home Office 2004
Pre issue settlement of £30,000 after liability admitted of a 69 days unlawful detention and 2 attempted unlawful removals.
I v Home Office, HC 2004
Settlement of £10,000 for a 6 day detention of an asylum seeker on the erroneous basis that removal was imminent when in fact an appeal had been lodged and was still outstanding.
EZ and FMK v Home Office, HC 2004
£15,000 settlement where an HIV positive mother was detained with her very young child for 1 day. A separate settlement was made for the child the terms of which are confidential.
A v Home Office, HC 2004
A settlement of £7,500 was reached for detention followed by an unlawful removal.
H and M v Home Office, HC 2004
In this case the Home Office failed to maintain accurate records regarding the asylum claim of a wife and her dependant husband. £12,500 settlement was reached for their claims for false imprisonment, breaches the Data Protection Act, and in breach of articles 5 and 8.
D v Home Office, HC 2003
Claim for Polish Romany client for false imprisonment and breach of human rights arising from her imprisonment and removal from the UK whilst she had an outstanding human rights claim. Settlement reached for £13,000.
S v Home Office, HC 2003
Claim for Kosovan client for false imprisonment and breach of human rights arising from his imprisonment and removal from the UK whilst he had an outstanding human rights claim. Settlement reached at £13,000.
I v Home Office, HC 2003
Admission of liability by the Home Office for the arrest and detention of an asylum seeker who had outstanding appeal rights in the UK.
C v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Central London County Court 2003
Claim for damages for false imprisonment and in race discrimination for asylum seeker suspected of immigration offences. Settlement for £8,000
Re I 2003
Setting aside a conviction and assessment of damages of £30,000 by the assessor where I had served 46 days for his wrongful conviction for possession of a false passport, the prosecution being in breach of the UN Convention regarding treatment of those seeking asylum.
DS v Home Office, HC 2001
Significant settlement reached in this case for 3 months detention following a lengthy period of lawful detention.
R v SSHD ex parte Q (1), (2), (3), AC 1998 - 2001
Three judicial reviews of the SSHD brought under Article 6 (the right to fair trial) amongst other grounds, finally leading to the SSHD granting the Claimant Exceptional Leave to Enter in order to remain in the UK to pursue litigation.
