Medical Justice v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 251 (14 March 2025)

Medical Justice v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 251 (14 March 2025)

The Statutory Guidance does not require immediate assessment on the basis of evidence first received; it permits a reasonable period for caseworkers to seek further evidence, including a second medical opinion, before determining vulnerability and continued detention. The High Court erred in holding otherwise. However, the finding that Medical Justice had a legitimate expectation of consultation was a factual assessment open to the judge on the evidence, and there was no error of law in that conclusion.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 251
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Medical Justice; Defendant/appellant: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Statutory Guidance Interpretation, Legitimate Expectation, Consultation Duty, Immigration Detention, Vulnerable Adults, Judicial Review
Public Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Statutory Guidance Interpretation Legitimate Expectation Consultation Duty Immigration Detention Vulnerable Adults +1 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 2 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Medical Justice

Claimant/respondent

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Opinion Policy was inconsistent with the Statutory Guidance issued under section 59 of the Immigration Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether there was a common law duty to consult Medical Justice before introducing the Second Opinion Policy

Ratio Decidendi

The Statutory Guidance does not require immediate assessment on the basis of evidence first received; it permits a reasonable period for caseworkers to seek further evidence, including a second medical opinion, before determining vulnerability and continued detention. The High Court erred in holding otherwise. However, the finding that Medical Justice had a legitimate expectation of consultation was a factual assessment open to the judge on the evidence, and there was no error of law in that conclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Secretary of State's appeal on inconsistency with Statutory Guidance (ground 1) allowed; High Court's quashing of the Second Opinion Policy on this ground set aside.
  • Secretary of State's appeal on duty to consult (ground 2) dismissed; High Court's finding of legitimate expectation of consultation and quashing of the Policy on this ground upheld.