Hameed & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hameed & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The judge at first instance erred in law by holding that the systemic unlawfulness of the 2005 Rules rendered all decisions and detentions under those rules unlawful without a fact-specific analysis. The Court of Appeal held that the claims must be remitted for a fresh hearing to determine, on the facts, whether and when any period of detention was unlawful and whether damages are payable.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Abdul Hameed; Claimant / Respondent: Rashida Jabeen; Defendant / Appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the judge set aside; case remitted for fresh hearing.
Legal Topics
Detention of Asylum Seekers, Lawfulness of Fast Track Procedure Rules, Judicial Review of Detention, Damages for Unlawful Detention
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Detention of Asylum Seekers Lawfulness of Fast Track Procedure Rules Judicial Review of Detention Damages for Unlawful Detention

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Hameed

Claimant / Respondent

Rashida Jabeen

Claimant / Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Asylum and Immigration (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 were unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the detention of the respondents under the DFT process was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal decisions under the 2005 Rules were necessarily unlawful due to the Rules' invalidity

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance erred in law by holding that the systemic unlawfulness of the 2005 Rules rendered all decisions and detentions under those rules unlawful without a fact-specific analysis. The Court of Appeal held that the claims must be remitted for a fresh hearing to determine, on the facts, whether and when any period of detention was unlawful and whether damages are payable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the judge set aside; case remitted for fresh hearing.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside.
  • Judicial review claims remitted for fresh hearing in the Administrative Court before a different judge.