Monterosso v Secretary Of State For The Home Department, Re Application For Judicial Review [2000] ScotCS 251 (29 September 2000)

Monterosso v Secretary Of State For The Home Department, Re Application For Judicial Review [2000] ScotCS 251 (29 September 2000)

The continued authorisation of detention under the Immigration Act is lawful where the respondent intends to remove the petitioner as soon as reasonably practicable, but is prevented from doing so by ongoing criminal proceedings outside his control. There is no abuse of power as the respondent's intention remains removal, and the risk of absconding justifies maintaining the detention authorisation.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 251
Parties
Petitioner: Ivan Estuardo Guzman Monterosso; Defender: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Opinion of Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Immigration Detention, Removal Directions, Bail, Abuse of Power, Indivisibility of the Crown
Immigration Law Criminal Law Public Law Immigration Detention Removal Directions Bail Abuse of Power Indivisibility of the Crown

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Estuardo Guzman Monterosso

Petitioner

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defender

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Opinion of Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether administrative detention under the Immigration Act 1971 is lawful when concurrent criminal proceedings prevent removal
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's continued authorisation of detention pending removal constitutes an abuse of power

Ratio Decidendi

The continued authorisation of detention under the Immigration Act is lawful where the respondent intends to remove the petitioner as soon as reasonably practicable, but is prevented from doing so by ongoing criminal proceedings outside his control. There is no abuse of power as the respondent's intention remains removal, and the risk of absconding justifies maintaining the detention authorisation.

Court Disposition

petition refused

Orders

  • Respondent's second plea-in-law sustained
  • Prayer of the petition refused