R Tracey v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Roger Ter Haar QC |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1327 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 30 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | CO/3468/2017 |
[2017] EWHC 1327 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Roger Ter Haar QC
CO/3468/2017
Mr Tiki Emezie (instructed by Chipatiso Associates) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Robert Williams (instructed by the Government Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
I have before me a challenge to the lawfulness of the claimant's detention on 30 June 2016 and his subsequent removal to Jamaica on 3 July 2016. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 24 August 2016. I will return later to the reasons given by him for granting permission.
The claimant is a young man. He was born on 16 October 1996 in Jamaica. He arrived in the United Kingdom with his mother on 30 January 1999. He and his mother were removed and then returned again on Christmas Day 2000. On 31 October 2004, the claimant, then just past his eighth birthday, was knocked over by a car. He was seriously injured and undoubtedly he suffered a degloving injury to the left side of his skull and a degloving injury to his left ear. There is good evidence that he also suffered numerous headaches as a result of that accident. There is some question as to whether that accident resulted in mental impairment and, if so, to what extent. That is something to which I have to return in a moment.
On 15 June 2010, the claimant and his wider family were given indefinite leave to remain in this country. Between March 2010, when the claimant was only 13, and March 2015, the claimant was convicted on 22 occasions of 32 offences, including two offences against the person, two fraud offences, 14 theft offences and five drug-related offences. On 16 October 2014, he passed his eighteenth birthday. It may well be that he having become an adult led the Secretary of State to consider his immigration position. I do not know. Certainly, the next stage was on 12 February 2015. A stage one Deportation Order against the claimant was made under Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 on the basis that his presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good. That order was served upon him on 5 March 2015.
On 14 April 2015, representations were prepared as to why he should not be deported, although not received by the Secretary of State until 22 July 2015. Nothing in my view turns upon that delay. On 15 September 2015, so whilst this Deportation Order was hanging over him, the claimant was convicted at North- east London Magistrates' Court of possession of controlled class B drugs. It could not have been that serious an incident, because he was sentenced by the Magistrates' Court to a conditional discharge. Two days later, the same court convicted him of interfering with a vehicle. The sentence was adjourned and he was sentenced on 9 October 2015 to a 12-month Community Order. Doubtless, neither of these two convictions can have done anything to improve his chances of avoiding a Deportation Order.
On 29 October 2015, the Secretary of State issued a Deportation Order. In doing so, the Secretary of State also refused a human rights claim and issued a certificate under Section 94(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I will have to return to the effect of that. Part of that certification involved the Secretary of State forming a view that the claimant would not, before the appeals process was exhausted, face a real risk of serious irreversible harm if removed to the country or territory to which it was proposed he would be removed. In this case, Jamaica.
Just under a month later on 20 November 2015, the claimant was detained, served with a deportation decision and served with a Deportation Order. There was then a period during which there was some doubt as to whether or not the claimant wanted to make a claim for asylum. On 9 October 2015, the Home Office wrote to the solicitors then acting for the claimant, who are not the solicitors now acting for him, asking them to confirm whether or not the claimant wished to claim asylum and, if so, on what ground or grounds.
At this stage, his present solicitors came on the scene. On 16 October 2015, they made further representations. In those representations, they sent a somewhat elderly independent social worker's report which related to the position of the claimant and his family and said in terms that they were going to send further medical evidence. That was said in three separate places in those representations. The social worker's report did not suggest anything which might give rise to a submission that the claimant had any serious mental health issues or any learning difficulties.
On 12 January 2016, the solicitors wrote to the Home Office saying that there was no asylum claim being put forward. On 5 February 2016, the Secretary of State made a decision refusing further human rights claims being put forward, again certifying the claim under Section 94(b) and maintaining the Deportation Order. In the usual way, there was a lengthy decision letter explaining the basis of that decision.
On 1 March 2016, the removal directions were set. At that stage, the date for removal was anticipated to be 20 April 2016. Stopping at that point, this is at 1 March 2016, although it had been indicated that there would be medical evidence presented, particularly in relation to the claimant's mental health, no such evidence had been put forward nor was any timetable put forward within which it might be adduced. No explanation has been put forward for why it was not adduced at that time. It would seem from events that took place in July that if contact had been made with medical authorities, it is possible, if not probable, that medical evidence could have been gathered together at that time.
I move on to 11 March. On 11 March 2016, the claimant's present solicitors filed an application for a judicial review in the Upper Tribunal. The Secretary of State took into account that that application had been made and on 3 April cancelled the removal directions which had already been issued. Things moved relatively rapidly, because on 8 April the Secretary of State served its statement of grounds resisting judicial review and on 18 April 2016 Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs decided that permission to apply for judicial review should be refused and also certified that the application was totally without merit. On 23 May 2016, an application was filed for permission to appeal that decision. That application was out of time. On 27 May 2016, the Secretary of State set removal directions for 3 July 2016. They were not at that stage served.
In the meantime, on 26 April 2016, Mr Emezie, who represents the claimant today and who is clearly extremely experienced in immigration matters, represented the claimant at a hearing before the First-tier Tribunal and obtained on his behalf bail. Bail was on the condition that there should be reporting, as I understand it, weekly. It is important in my view in setting out the history to note that by 26 April those representing the claimant had been involved since December 2015. They had made representations, had indicated that further medical evidence might be forthcoming, and they had also been involved in attempting to obtain a judicial review, as I say, on 11 March and so they were well aware that the threat hanging over this young man was of deportation. They were also well aware that there was a need, in the claimant's view, for medical evidence.
At all events, on 7 June 2016, Upper Tribunal Judge O'Connor considered the application first of all for permission to appeal out of time. He refused that permission, first on the grounds that it was out of time, but, secondly, on the merits. No steps were taken at that stage to appeal to the Court of Appeal. As I have already said, bail had been granted on the condition that the claimant report on a weekly basis to a police station.
What happens then is to be found set out in the witness statement from Mr Moffitt, which is in the supplementary bundle. I take the account from paragraph 8 and following. He refers to the fact that removal directions had been given on 27 May. Paragraph 8 says this:
"The Claimant then applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on 18 May 2016 in order to challenge the decision by the Upper Tribunal to refuse his application for Judicial Review."
That is not quite accurate, because what in fact he had done was to apply not to the Court of Appeal, but to the Upper Tribunal to challenge the decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing permission to appeal but refusing permission for application for judicial review. At any rate, Mr Moffitt then continues:
"The Claimant's application to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused on 8 June 2016 …"
That should of course be, as I say, a reference to Upper Tribunal Judge O'Connor's decision on 7 June:
"… the outcome of this application entered onto the Case Information Database on 27 June 2016.
9. Police colleagues agreed to detain the Claimant when he next reported on 22 June 2016 at Becket House (Reporting Centre) and serve him with his Removal Directions to afford the Claimant standard notice of removal. However, the Claimant arrived to report to the Home Office on 22 June 2016 without a copy of his IS96 (Reporting Conditions) and he was advised by Home Office staff that he would need to be issued with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of SHOTE) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of the present claim, the point is authoritatively resolved by AR (Pakistan), which was accordingly followed in R (Tracey) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1327 (Admin) at §§51–52; and in R (Lupepe) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 2690 (Admin) at §52. 36 As Longmore LJ (for the Court of Appeal) explained in AR (Pakis......
-
(1) Paul Nixon v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) ROGER TER HAAR SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE [2017] EWHC 1327 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Hickinbottom Case No: C4/2016/3498 The Queen on the Application of Between: ......