R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1983 |
| Date | 13 December 1983 |
Immigration - Deportation order - Detention pending deportation - Delay in removing immigrant from United Kingdom - Whether limit to period of detention - Duty to effect deportation promptly -
The applicant, an Indian national, entered the United Kingdom lawfully in 1977 and was given indefinite leave to remain. In 1982 he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment following convictions on charges of burglary. In January 1983, while he was still in custody, he was visited by immigration officials, and on 16 June 1983 the Secretary of State made a deportation order against him on the ground that his deportation was conducive to the public good, and the order was duly served on him. He would have been released from prison on parole on 20 July 1983, but he was detained after that date pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971F1 pending his removal from the United Kingdom. The length of the period of detention was the result of the applicant losing his passport and delay by the Indian High Commission in issuing alternative travel documents. There was no direct communication between the Home Office and the Indian High Commission about the lack of travel documents until 24 October 1983. On 10 November the Home Office wrote to the High Commission stating that further delay was undesirable in view of the length of time that the applicant had been detained.
On an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking the applicant's release: —
Held, that the power of detention given by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1971 was limited to such period of time as was reasonably necessary to carry out the process of deportation; that the Secretary of State was under a duty to act promptly in carrying out the process of deportation and he should not exercise the power of detention unless the person subject to a deportation order could be deported within a reasonable time; and that, unless the Home Office produced evidence within three days to show that the applicant was about to be deported or that his continued detention was reasonable in the circumstances, the court would order that the applicant be released from custody (post, pp. 706D–G, 708H, 709A).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Reg. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sital Singh (unreported), 8 July 1975,
Reg. v. Governor of Richmond Remand Centre, Ex parte Asghar [
The following additional case was cited in argument:
Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Sarno [
APPLICATION for writ of habeas corpus.
By notice of motion, dated 2 December 1983, the applicant, Hardial Singh, applied for an order for a writ of habeas corpus of subjiciendum directed to the governor of Her Majesty's Prison at Durham to show cause why the applicant should not be released immediately. The applicant was being detained pending his removal from the United Kingdom pursuant to a deportation order made on 16 June 1983, while he was serving a sentence of imprisonment from which he would otherwise have been released on parole on 20 July 1983. The grounds of the application were that if the applicant were released from prison pending his deportation, he would abide by any reasonable restrictions placed upon his liberty, and, he believed he would be able to reside with his cousin, Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur and her husband in Bradford.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Terry Munyard for the applicant.
Andrew Collins for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
WOOLF J. This is an application for habeas corpus by Mr. Hardial Singh which, in my view, raises an issue of considerable importance as to how long it is proper for the Home Secretary lawfully to detain an individual in prison pending his removal from this country, pursuant to the deportation machinery. The applicant is an Indian national who was born in India on 19 December 1957. He entered this country on 14 December 1977, just before his 20th birthday. He was given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and there is no suggestion whatsoever that he did otherwise than enter this country lawfully, and there is no suggestion that he has not been lawfully in this country since 1977. However, he committed two offences of a criminal nature which brought him before the courts, one of burglary, which was dealt with in 1980, and a further offence of burglary which was dealt with in 1982. In relation to the second offence he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. In addition, the earlier...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
R (Khadir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Schedule 2 but rather in relation to those whom it is intended to deport under Schedule 3. The first of these cases was R v Governor of Durham Prison, Ex p Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 where, following a two-year prison sentence for burglary, the applicant was served with a deportation o......
-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v JM (Zimbabwe)
...is nonetheless subject to the implied constraints imposed by the common law, specifically the principles derived from R v Governor of Durham Prison ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 as refined in subsequent case law. 24 As noted at [3] above, JM was an illegal entrant. As Ms Julie And......
-
YH (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...ground that the Secretary of State's power to detain must be exercised in accordance with the principles derived from R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 W.L.R. 704. 53 Moreover, it is clear that the public law constraints to which detention decisions are subject ......
-
R Abdi Abdilahi Ismail v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Schedule 2 but rather in relation to those whom it is intended to deport under Schedule 3. The first of these cases was R v Governor of Durham Prison, Ex p. Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLE 704 where, following a two-year prison sentence for burglary, the applicant was served with a deportation o......
-
Uncertainty and Exclusion: Detention of Aliens and the High Court
...at the will of the executive). 153 Ibid 616 [149] (Kirby J). 154 Notably, R v Governor of Durham Prison; Ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704, [1984] 1 All ER 983; Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre [1997] AC 97. 155 Al-Kateb (2004) 219 CLR 562, 619 [157] (Kirby J......
-
The New Responsive Constitutionalism
...failed.52 It was only in November2023, in NZYQ vMinister for Immigration, that the High Cour t nally reversed45 RvGovernor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704, 707 per Woolf J.46 ibid. Such judicial approaches remain persuasive authority post-1998: see for example Lumba vSecretar......
-
Assuring Deportation of Terrorist Suspects
...government is endeavour- ing to provide the assurances requested by the UK. Following R vGovernor of Durham Prison, ex p. Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 at 706,Qatada can be detained only for a period that is reasonably necessary,and the Secretary of State should not seek to detain him if i......
-
Exploring the Function of Criminal Law in the Policing of Foreigners
...at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/immi-gration/ (accessed 23 October 2011).7. See Rv.Governorof Durham Prison, Ex parte Singh [1984] 1 All ER 983 (at 706). This leadingcase states three fundamental temporal limits to administrative detention of foreigners: thedetention should be imposed......
-
Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001
...removal is not going to be possible within a reasonable time, detention will be unlawful (R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Singh [1984] All ER 983). Article 5(1)(f) of the It is well established that Article 5(1)(f) permits the detention of a person with a view to deportation only in......
