R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1983 |
| Date | 13 December 1983 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
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...
To continue reading
Request your 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......
-
R (Walumba Lumba and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...detained pending deportation and that his continued detention was in breach of the principles stated by Woolf J in R v Governor of Durham Prison, Ex p Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 ("the Hardial Singh principles"). He also claimed a declaration that his detention was unlawful, a mandatory......
-
R Shahpoor Mohammed v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...to administrative detention were established by Woolf J in the leading case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 at §§7 and 8 (as further refined in a number of subsequent cases). In R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [20......
-
Dimitris Tsavdaris v Home Office
...revoked in May 2006. 23 Applying the four principles established in R (Hardial Singh) v Governor of Durham Prison [1983] EWHC 1 (QB), [1984] 1 WLR 704, the Claimant was unlawfully detained in immigration detention from 28 th May 2006 because: (1) the power to detain was not being used for ......
-
Keeping control of terrorists without losing control of constitutionalism.
...AND LIBERTY]. To detain indefinitely pending deportation would also breach article 5(1)(f). See R v. Governor of Durham Prison, [1984] 1 All E.R. 983 (Q.B.); Tan Te Lam v. Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre, [1997] A.C. 97 (P.C.) (appeal taken from Court of Appeal of Hong Kong); ......
-
The Anti–Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: A Proportionate Response to 11 September?
...consideration’ is present. Possibly section 3(1)HRA could be used, as57 See: RvGovernor of Durham Prison ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704; R (on theapplication of Saadi and Others vSecretary of State for the Home Dept (2001) 145 SJLB 246; (2001)151 NLJ 1573.58 In the Immigration Act ......
-
Covert derogations and judicial deference: redefining liberty and due process rights in counterterrorism law and beyond.
...(50) Under the Immigration Act 1971 (UK), c 77, Schedule 3, s 2. (51) R v Governor of Durham Prison ex parte Singh, [1984] 1 Al] ER 983, [1984] 1 WLR 704 (52) ECHR, supra note 15 at 226. (53) It was found in Chahal (supra note 49 at 113) that in order to allow detention under art 5(l)(f), d......
-
A tale of two systems: the use of international law in constitutional interpretation in Australia and South Africa.
...195 CLR 337. (190) (2004) 208 ALR 124. Cf the decisions in the United Kingdom (R v Governor of Durham Prison; Ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 WLR 87), the United States (Zadvydas v Davis, 533 US 678 (2001)) and Hong Kong (T......
-
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......