The Home Office v TR & Anor

The Home Office v TR & Anor

The judge erred in law by failing to consider whether there were reasonable grounds for suspecting JA could be removed at the time of detention, as required by statute. The burden of proof regarding citizenship lay on JA under s.3(8) of the Immigration Act 1971. The judge's reasoning on the application of Hardial Singh to TR's detention and the quantum of damages was inadequate. Both the appeal and cross-appeal succeed and the case is remitted for rehearing.

Parties
Appellant: The Home Office; First Respondent: TR; Second Respondent: JA (by his mother and litigation friend, the First Respondent)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing by another judge.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Immigration Detention, Burden of Proof, British Citizenship, Damages
Public Law Immigration Law Tort Law False Imprisonment Immigration Detention Burden of Proof British Citizenship Damages

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Home Office

Appellant

TR

First Respondent

JA (by his mother and litigation friend, the First Respondent)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a British citizen child can lawfully be detained under immigration powers when citizenship is not yet proved
  2. 2 Whether the Hardial Singh principles were correctly applied to the period of detention of TR
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages awarded was adequately reasoned and appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by failing to consider whether there were reasonable grounds for suspecting JA could be removed at the time of detention, as required by statute. The burden of proof regarding citizenship lay on JA under s.3(8) of the Immigration Act 1971. The judge's reasoning on the application of Hardial Singh to TR's detention and the quantum of damages was inadequate. Both the appeal and cross-appeal succeed and the case is remitted for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing by another judge.

Orders

  • Case remitted to the County Court for rehearing by a different judge.
  • Parties to agree terms of draft order in writing.