D, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

D, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

The failure to provide the claimants with a medical examination within 24 hours of admission, as required by Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, constituted a significant breach of statutory duty. This failure, compounded by the operation of Policy No. 25 which prevented medical practitioners from expressing concerns about torture, resulted in the unlawful detention of the claimants for specific periods. Declaratory relief is granted against the First Defendant and GSL for breach of Rule 34, and compensation is payable by the First Defendant for the periods of unlawful detention.

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 Full Hearing
Outcome
Declaratory relief granted against the First Defendant and GSL for breach of Rule 34; compensation awarded to both claimants for periods of unlawful detention; no relief against PCFM; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Detention of Asylum Seekers, Compliance With Statutory Rules, Judicial Review of Public Bodies, Compensation for Unlawful Detention
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Detention of Asylum Seekers Compliance With Statutory Rules Judicial Review of Public Bodies Compensation 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 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 Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to provide medical examination within 24 hours under Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 rendered detention unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the initial decision to detain claimants under the fast-track procedure was contrary to published policy or irrational
  3. 3 Whether the practices and policies of the Defendants, including Policy No. 25, were lawful and compliant with statutory and policy requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to provide the claimants with a medical examination within 24 hours of admission, as required by Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, constituted a significant breach of statutory duty. This failure, compounded by the operation of Policy No. 25 which prevented medical practitioners from expressing concerns about torture, resulted in the unlawful detention of the claimants for specific periods. Declaratory relief is granted against the First Defendant and GSL for breach of Rule 34, and compensation is payable by the First Defendant for the periods of unlawful detention.

Court Disposition

Declaratory relief granted against the First Defendant and GSL for breach of Rule 34; compensation awarded to both claimants for periods of unlawful detention; no relief against PCFM; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the First Defendant and GSL failed to comply with Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 in respect of both claimants.
  • Compensation to be paid by the First Defendant to D and K for periods of unlawful detention (2 days for D, 4 days for K), quantum to be assessed.