Ibukun Adebowale Adegboyega v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hearing dates: 12, 13, 14 and 17 June 2024

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

HHJ Richard Roberts

HIS HONOUR JUDGE

Contents

Introduction

This is the hearing of the trial of the Claimant's claim for damages for:

i) His unlawful detention at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (Brook House) for 88 days between 28 April 2017 and 24 July 2017;

ii) Trespass to the person on 5 June 2017;

iii) Violation of his rights under Article 3ECHR during the period of unlawful detention;

iv) Psychiatric injury suffered as a result of his unlawful detention;

v) Breach of his rights under Directive 2004/38/EC (the Directive) and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (EEA Regulations 2006);

vi) Violation of his rights under Article 8ECHR.

Mr Jafferji of Counsel and Mr Hingora of Counsel appear on behalf of the Claimant and I am grateful to them for their:

i) Skeleton argument for trial, dated 10 June 2024;

ii) Closing submissions, dated 17 June 2024;

iii) Document describing the content of the video footage from the Police body worn footage when the Claimant was detained for driving with excess alcohol on 1 July 2023;

iv) Document of extracts from the Brook House Inquiry report.

Mr Rawat of Counsel appears on behalf of the Defendant and I am grateful to him for his:

i) Skeleton argument, dated 9 June 2024;

ii) Closing submissions, dated 16 June 2024.

There are the following bundles of documents before the Court:

i) Core bundle;

ii) Supplementary bundle;

iii) Brook House Inquiry report bundle;

iv) Material referred to in Claimant's closing submissions;

v) Application notice bundle;

vi) Correspondence between the parties regarding the relevance of the Brook House Inquiry;

vii) Authorities bundle.

References to page numbers below are to the core bundle, unless otherwise stated.

Applications heard during trial

On the morning of the first day of the trial, 12 June 2024, the Claimant made an application to admit an amended schedule of loss, dated 5 June 2024, and witness statements, dated 23 June 2017, 20 December 2019 and 20 April 2021. This application was heard by Christopher Kennedy KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, who refused the Claimant's application to amend his schedule of loss but gave permission for him to rely upon the witness statements dated 23 June 2017, 20 December 2019 and 20 April 2021.

On the first afternoon of the trial, 12 June 2024, I heard an oral application by the Claimant for permission to rely upon the Brook House Inquiry report. This case concerns the period 28 April 2017 to 24 July 2017, and so is within the period investigated by the Inquiry. The context of the Brook House Inquiry report is summarised in the report's Executive Summary 1:

“On 4 September 2017, the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme called ‘Undercover: Britain's Immigration Secrets’ (referred to in this Report as ‘the Panorama programme’). This had been filmed covertly over five months at Brook House, an immigration removal centre (IRC) near Gatwick Airport in Sussex. Containing disturbing footage, the documentary portrayed Brook House as violent, dysfunctional and unsafe. It showed the use of abusive, racist and derogatory language by some staff towards those in their care, the effects of illicit drugs, and the use of force by staff on mentally and physically unwell detained people.

Following the broadcast of the Panorama programme, a series of investigations were conducted, including a special investigation by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) in 2019, …. On 5 November 2019, the Home Secretary announced that the

PPO's special investigation would be converted to a statutory inquiry under section 15 of the Inquiries Act 2005.”

The application was vigorously opposed by Mr Rawat. On 13 June 2024, I handed down a written judgment, giving permission to the Claimant to rely upon the Brook House Inquiry report. I ordered that the weight to be attached to the report is subject to the factors in Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995.

On 13 June 2024, I heard the Claimant's application notice, dated 13 June 2024, to admit videos of a Police incident on 1 July 2023 (body worn camera footage) and the Claimant's updated medical records. I gave permission for the Claimant to rely upon this evidence.

On 17 June 2024, I heard the Defendant's application notice, dated 17 June 2024, to adduce a Police report and the accompanying witness statement of PC Betteridge, dated 1 July 2023. I gave permission for the Defendant to rely upon this evidence.

On 17 June 2024, I extended the time given at paragraph 1 of the order of Master Brown, dated 3 October 2023 2, for the Claimant's solicitors to show cause in writing as to why they should not be liable for 75% of the Defendant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of 1 February 2023. I grant permission for the Defendant to respond to the Claimant's letter showing cause, dated 8 July 2024, by 4pm on 30 September 2024.

On 17 June 2024, the parties agreed that five documents, which had been mistakenly omitted from the bundles, should be admitted. Those documents were put together in a bundle called “material referred to in Claimant's closing submissions”.

Lay evidence

The Claimant relies upon the following witness statements, which he has made:

i) Statement dated 23 June 2017 3, in support of his application for the Court to grant him release from detention;

ii) Statement dated 1 February 2018 4, made pursuant to the order of HHJ Coe KC;

iii) Statement dated 20 December 2019, in support of his application for an interim payment;

iv) Statement dated 27 January 2020 5, made in support of this claim;

v) Statement dated 20 April 2021 6, in support of his application for an interim payment;

vi) Statement to the Brook House Inquiry, dated 19 November 2021 7.

The Claimant gave evidence and was cross-examined.

The Defendant did not rely upon any lay witness evidence.

Medico-legal evidence

The Claimant relies upon a medical report from Professor Tony Elliott MBChB FRCPsychMsoC Sci (Dist) FRSH, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 28 December 2019 8, and an addendum report, dated 12 June 2024 9.

The Defendant relies upon an expert report from Dr Das MBChB MRPsych BSc MSc, Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 10 December 2019 10, and an addendum report, dated 14 June 2024 11.

There is a joint statement by Professor Elliott and Dr Das, dated 28 February 2020 12.

Admission of liability

The order of Stewart J, dated 1 June 2020 13, contains the following admission of liability 14,

“AND UPON the Defendant having conceded within the proceedings that the Claimant is entitled in principle to substantive damages...