The Queen (on the application of SS by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Nestor Primecare Services Ltd (Intervener)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Moore-Bick |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Civ 652 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C4/2014/0512 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 26 June 2015 |
[2015] EWCA Civ 652
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
His Honour Judge Anthony Thornton Q.C.
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Moore-Bick
(Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Lord Justice Elias
and
Lord Justice McCombe
Case No: C4/2014/0512
Miss Julie Anderson (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the appellant
Mr. Richard Drabble Q.C. and Mr. Graham Denholm (instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn) for the respondent
This appeal arises out of proceedings in the Administrative Court by which the respondent sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention for immigration purposes and to recover damages for false imprisonment.
On 3 rd December 2011 the respondent was detained as an overstayer. He subsequently made a claim for asylum which was initially handled under the Detained Fast Track procedure. By a claim issued in the Administrative Court on 15 th March 2012 he sought to challenge his detention by the appellant on the following grounds:
(a) that the appellant had failed to apply the policy set out in Chapter 55.10 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance in relation to the detention of the mentally ill;
(b) that the use of the Detained Fast Track to consider his asylum claim was unlawful;
(c) that in detaining him the appellant was in breach of the Hardial Singh principles;
(d) that the appellant had failed to provide him with adequate healthcare;
(e) that his detention involved a breach of his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention");
(f) that the clinicians responsible for his healthcare failed to conduct any or any adequate medical examination of him under Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 and failed to make a report under Rule 35 of those Rules.
A judge of the First-tier Tribunal subsequently removed the respondent's claim from the Detained Fast Track system and on 23 rd March 2012 he was released from detention. However, he continued the proceedings against the appellant seeking declaratory relief and damages for false imprisonment.
On 16 th April 2013, the matter came on for hearing before His Honour Judge Anthony Thornton Q.C. sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Administrative Court. As there was insufficient time for the parties to complete their submissions within the single day allocated to the case, they were allowed to file additional evidence and further submissions in writing after the hearing.
Judgment was delivered on 28 th January 2014. It ran to over 196 pages and contained 431 paragraphs. The judge made a large number of findings on a wide range of matters that fell outside the pleaded grounds and the parties' submissions. He concluded that the entire period of the respondent's detention had been unlawful and amounted to a breach of his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. He granted a declaration to that effect and gave judgment for damages to be assessed.
On 18 th February 2014 the appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking to have the judgment set aside. It is unnecessary for present purposes to set out the many grounds of appeal in detail; suffice it to say that on 20 th October 2014 Underhill L.J. granted permission to appeal on all of them.
In the spring of 2015, the hearing of the appeal being imminent, the parties entered into discussions about the best way of disposing of the appeal. As a result, on 13 th May 2015 the respondent's solicitors sent the appellant's solicitors an open letter acknowledging that the judge had erred in some important respects and that his decision could not stand. They accepted that the matter would have to be remitted to the High Court for a re-hearing and suggested that in order to save costs the parties should invite the court to approve a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R SW v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Home Department [2014] EWHC 3257 (Admin), per Haddon-Cave J, at paragraph 4, and R (SS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 652, at paragraph 11. It has been stressed that the Queen's Bench Division and the County Court are better suited than the Administrative Cour......
-
Terence William Norman v The Crown Court at Chelmsford
...been made by the Court of Appeal in the context of immigration detention claims, see R(S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 652 at paragraph 11 and R(ZA (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 146 at paragraphs 69 and 75. These p......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2021-11-30, [2021] UKUT 320 (IAC) (R (on the application of T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Judicial review: damages claims))
...EWCA Civ 944.” These observations were approved by the Court of Appeal in R (SS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 652, another challenge to the lawfulness of an individual’s immigration detention. At paragraph 11, Moore-Bick LJ “11. ... Once the respondent......
-
R (on the Application of ZA (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...will be relevant. These are points which have been made by the Court of Appeal in R (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 652 at paragraph 11, approving Swaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1062 (Admin) at paragraphs 70 As a matter of ......