AO v The Home Office

AO v The Home Office

The Claimant's detention was unlawful between 4 April and 24 August 2017 and 4 to 25 January 2018 due to admitted policy breaches. Detention was further unlawful from 26 December 2017 under Hardial Singh principles, and from 14 November 2017 due to breach of section 4 accommodation duty and failure to follow the Case Progression Panel recommendation. The Secretary of State's failure to consider the welfare of the Claimant's children also rendered detention unlawful from the outset until at least 5 July 2017, but only entitled the Claimant to nominal damages for that period. The Claimant was entitled to substantial damages for detention between 14 November 2017 and 25 January 2018. Claims...

Parties
Claimant: AO; Defendant: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Judgment / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; declarations of unlawful detention granted for specified periods; substantial damages awarded for 14 November 2017 to 25 January 2018; nominal damages for other periods; Article 3 and 8 claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Detention, False Imprisonment, Breach of Policy, Article 3 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Duty to Inquire, Bail Accommodation, Children's Welfare, Adults at Risk Policy
Public Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Unlawful Detention False Imprisonment Breach of Policy Article 3 ECHR Article 5 ECHR +5 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 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AO

Claimant

The Home Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judgment / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's detention was unlawful under Hardial Singh principles
  2. 2 Whether detention was unlawful due to breach of Adults at Risk (AAR) policy
  3. 3 Whether detention was unlawful due to breach of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (EIG) policy, especially regarding children

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's detention was unlawful between 4 April and 24 August 2017 and 4 to 25 January 2018 due to admitted policy breaches. Detention was further unlawful from 26 December 2017 under Hardial Singh principles, and from 14 November 2017 due to breach of section 4 accommodation duty and failure to follow the Case Progression Panel recommendation. The Secretary of State's failure to consider the welfare of the Claimant's children also rendered detention unlawful from the outset until at least 5 July 2017, but only entitled the Claimant to nominal damages for that period. The Claimant was entitled to substantial damages for detention between 14 November 2017 and 25 January 2018. Claims...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; declarations of unlawful detention granted for specified periods; substantial damages awarded for 14 November 2017 to 25 January 2018; nominal damages for other periods; Article 3 and 8 claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that detention was unlawful between 4 April and 24 August 2017 and 4 to 25 January 2018 due to policy breach
  • Declaration that detention was unlawful from 26 December 2017 to 25 January 2018 under Hardial Singh principles