Khaleseh v The Home Office

Khaleseh v The Home Office

The Rule 35 report from Dr Tippu constituted independent evidence of torture. The Defendant's decision-maker erred in law by failing to treat the report as such and by relying on credibility concerns and an incorrect definition of torture. No very exceptional circumstances were identified to justify continued detention. The Defendant's failure to follow its own policy rendered the Claimant's detention from 27 November 2013 unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Mohsen Khaleseh; Defendant: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (false Imprisonment) / Trial of Liability Only
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant on liability; detention from 27 November 2013 unlawful.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Immigration Detention, Detention Centre Rules, Judicial Review, Damages for Unlawful Detention
Public Law Immigration Law Tort Law False Imprisonment Immigration Detention Detention Centre Rules Judicial Review 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohsen Khaleseh

Claimant

The Home Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (false Imprisonment) / Trial of Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's detention from 27 November 2013 was unlawful due to breach of the Defendant's policy regarding victims of torture
  2. 2 Whether the Rule 35 report constituted independent evidence of torture requiring release absent very exceptional circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's decision to maintain detention was reasonable and lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Rule 35 report from Dr Tippu constituted independent evidence of torture. The Defendant's decision-maker erred in law by failing to treat the report as such and by relying on credibility concerns and an incorrect definition of torture. No very exceptional circumstances were identified to justify continued detention. The Defendant's failure to follow its own policy rendered the Claimant's detention from 27 November 2013 unlawful.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant on liability; detention from 27 November 2013 unlawful.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Claimant's detention from 27 November 2013 was unlawful.
  • Quantum of damages to be determined at a later hearing.