Detention Centres in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R (SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Supreme Court
    • 25 May 2011

    I agree with these observations, but I would prefer to apply them to the system of review that is set out in the policy rather than to the system required by rule 9(1). This is because it seems to me that the 2001 Rules are concerned with the regulation and management of detention centres, not with the way the discretion to detain is exercised.

  • JB(Torture and III treatment - Article 3)
    • Immigration Appeals Tribunal
    • 24 Feb 2003

    Charges are rarely filed and the legal basis for such detentions are often obscure….” Detainees are often held in congested, dark and poorly ventilated cells. The cells lack toilets and inmates use either open containers, which are rarely emptied or plastic bags as toilets. Detainees spend days or even weeks without being allowed to wash themselves or change clothes. Beatings of detainees is a regular occurrence and some detainees have their hands and legs bound, often as a punishment.”

  • Raymond v Honey
    • House of Lords
    • 04 Mar 1982

    In my opinion, there is nothing in the Prison Act 1952 that confers power to make regulations which would deny, or interfere with, the right of the respondent, as a prisoner, to have unimpeded access to a court. Section 47, which has already been quoted, is a section concerned with the regulation and management of prisons and, in my opinion, is quite insufficient to authorise hindrance or interference with so basic a right.

  • R v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, ex parte St Germain
    • Court of Appeal
    • 03 Oct 1978

    Section 47 of the Prison Act, 1952 , deals with what the rubric describes as "rules for the management of prisons and other institutions". Sub-section (l) reads: "The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation and management of prisons, remand centres, detention centres and Borstal institutions respectively, and for the classification, treatment, employment, discipline and control of persons required to be detained therein".

  • R (SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Court of Appeal
    • 06 Nov 2008

    The need for such regular reviews stems from the necessity for the Secretary of State to monitor changing circumstances in a given case, lest his power to detain, on the principles set out in Hardial Singh, no longer exists. So the requirements imposed by rule 9 cannot be treated lightly, especially when one is dealing with administrative detention which deprives a person of his liberty without a court order.

  • R Pratima Das v Secretary of State for the Home Department Mind and Another (Interveners)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 Ene 2014

    The effect of mental illness on an individual does not follow as a necessary consequence of a particular diagnosis. It can vary according to its particular features, the particular characteristics and circumstances of the individual, and the treatment provided. The Royal College of Psychiatrists' position statement states (p 6) that whether mental illness is serious is a fact-sensitive question.

  • R (on the application of Hagos) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin Returns - Malta) (IJR)
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 30 Abr 2015

    We consider it highly likely that in this scenario and assuming that the Applicant is detained afresh to be prosecuted and/or following conviction, he will have access to the JRSM and will receive legal advice and support in pursuing one or more of the options identified above. Furthermore, it is probable that the Applicant will be further assisted in the presentation of his claim by the availability of the written statement and written representations prepared by his English solicitors.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results