Kamal v The Home Office

Kamal v The Home Office

The Defendant satisfied Hardial Singh principles 2, 3, and 4; detention was reasonable in all circumstances, Defendant acted with reasonable diligence, realistic prospect of removal existed throughout, and risk of absconding and reoffending justified continued detention.

Parties
Claimant: Ohmed Kamal; Defendant: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Liability Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Immigration Detention, Deportation, Hardial Singh Principles, Article 5 ECHR, Facilitated Return Scheme, Risk of Absconding, Risk of Reoffending
Immigration Human Rights Administrative Law Immigration Detention Deportation Hardial Singh Principles Article 5 ECHR Facilitated Return Scheme +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ohmed Kamal

Claimant

The Home Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's detention was lawful under Hardial Singh principles
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant acted with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal
  3. 3 Whether there was a realistic prospect of removal throughout the period of detention

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant satisfied Hardial Singh principles 2, 3, and 4; detention was reasonable in all circumstances, Defendant acted with reasonable diligence, realistic prospect of removal existed throughout, and risk of absconding and reoffending justified continued detention.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed