B & Ors v The Home Office [2016] EWHC 1080 (QB) (12 May 2016)

B & Ors v The Home Office [2016] EWHC 1080 (QB) (12 May 2016)

The Secretary of State's detention of the claimants, including children, was unlawful for significant periods because she failed to comply with her own policy requiring consideration of alternatives to detention and failed to act with particular despatch in progressing judicial review proceedings, contrary to the Hardial Singh principles and the policy informed by Article 37(b) UNCRC. The detention was not a measure of last resort and was not for the shortest appropriate period. The Secretary of State's failure to expedite the judicial review and to consider alternatives rendered the detention unlawful.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1080 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: B; Claimant: X; Claimant: Y (by her Mother and Litigation Friend B); Claimant: Z (by his Mother and Litigation Friend B); Defendant: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for False Imprisonment / Judgment on Liability After Trial
Outcome
Claimants succeeded on liability; detention found unlawful for significant periods.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Detention of Children, Immigration Detention, Article 5 ECHR, UNCRC, Secretary of State's Policy Compliance, Hardial Singh Principles
Public Law Tort Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law False Imprisonment Detention of Children Immigration Detention Article 5 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Claimant

X

Claimant

Y (by her Mother and Litigation Friend B)

Claimant

Z (by his Mother and Litigation Friend B)

Claimant

The Home Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for False Imprisonment / Judgment on Liability After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention of the claimants (including children) by the Secretary of State was unlawful as contrary to policy and/or the Hardial Singh principles
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to act with reasonable diligence and expedition in detaining the claimants
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State's breach of policy entitles the claimants to more than nominal damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's detention of the claimants, including children, was unlawful for significant periods because she failed to comply with her own policy requiring consideration of alternatives to detention and failed to act with particular despatch in progressing judicial review proceedings, contrary to the Hardial Singh principles and the policy informed by Article 37(b) UNCRC. The detention was not a measure of last resort and was not for the shortest appropriate period. The Secretary of State's failure to expedite the judicial review and to consider alternatives rendered the detention unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claimants succeeded on liability; detention found unlawful for significant periods.

Orders

  • Declarations granted that the claimants were unlawfully detained for specified periods.
  • Damages to be assessed at a later hearing (quantum reserved).