SM, R (On the Application Of) v Bail for Immigration Detainees

SM, R (On the Application Of) v Bail for Immigration Detainees

The failure to provide immigration detainees held in prisons with access to publicly funded legal advice equivalent to that available to detainees in IRCs under the DDAS constitutes unlawful discrimination under ECHR Article 14. The difference in treatment is not justified by the operational constraints or the dispersed nature of the prison population, and the status of being an immigration detainee held in prison is a relevant 'other status' for Article 14 purposes.

Parties
Claimant: SM; Defendant: Lord Chancellor; Intervener: Bail for Immigration Detainees
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Discrimination Under ECHR Article 14, Access to Justice, Legal Aid, Immigration Detention, Equality Before the Law
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Immigration Law Discrimination Under ECHR Article 14 Access to Justice Legal Aid Immigration Detention Equality Before the Law

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SM

Claimant

Lord Chancellor

Defendant

Bail for Immigration Detainees

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lack of equivalent legal advice provision for immigration detainees held in prisons, as compared to those in Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs), constitutes unlawful discrimination under ECHR Article 14 read with Articles 2, 3, 5, and 8.

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to provide immigration detainees held in prisons with access to publicly funded legal advice equivalent to that available to detainees in IRCs under the DDAS constitutes unlawful discrimination under ECHR Article 14. The difference in treatment is not justified by the operational constraints or the dispersed nature of the prison population, and the status of being an immigration detainee held in prison is a relevant 'other status' for Article 14 purposes.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the failure to afford immigration detainees held in prison access to publicly-funded legal advice equivalent to that available to detainees in IRCs under the DDAS is in breach of Convention rights.