D, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2006] EWHC 980 (Admin) (22 May 2006)

D, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2006] EWHC 980 (Admin) (22 May 2006)

The failure by the Defendants to ensure that all detainees at Oakington were provided with a medical examination by a medical practitioner within 24 hours of admission, as required by Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, constituted a breach of statutory duty. However, in the specific cases of D and K, the court found that both received timely medical attention and that their detention, while not in strict compliance with Rule 34, was not unlawful on the facts. The court held that the policy requiring independent evidence of torture before excluding a detainee from fast track was lawful. The claims for damages under Articles 3, 5, and 8 ECHR were not made out on the evidence.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 980 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: D; Claimant: K; First Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Defendant: GSL UK Limited (formerly Group 4 Total Security); Third Defendant: Primecare Forensic Medical (PCFM)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Detention of Asylum Seekers, Fast Track Asylum Procedure, Detention Centre Rules 2001, Medical Screening of Detainees, Article 3 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review of Public Bodies
Immigration Law Public Law Human Rights Law Detention of Asylum Seekers Fast Track Asylum Procedure Detention Centre Rules 2001 Medical Screening of Detainees Article 3 ECHR +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D

Claimant

K

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Defendant

GSL UK Limited (formerly Group 4 Total Security)

Second Defendant

Primecare Forensic Medical (PCFM)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention of D and K at Oakington under the fast track procedure was unlawful due to breaches of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 and government policy
  2. 2 Whether the failure to provide medical screening and examination within prescribed timeframes rendered the detention unlawful
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants acted contrary to Articles 3, 5, and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The failure by the Defendants to ensure that all detainees at Oakington were provided with a medical examination by a medical practitioner within 24 hours of admission, as required by Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, constituted a breach of statutory duty. However, in the specific cases of D and K, the court found that both received timely medical attention and that their detention, while not in strict compliance with Rule 34, was not unlawful on the facts. The court held that the policy requiring independent evidence of torture before excluding a detainee from fast track was lawful. The claims for damages under Articles 3, 5, and 8 ECHR were not made out on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • Declaratory relief refused
  • Claims for damages under Articles 3, 5, and 8 ECHR dismissed