Immigration Detention


Notable cases in which our members were instructed include:

R (FI) v. SSHD [2014] [2014] EWCA Civ 1272 concerning the legislative and administrative framework governing the use of control and restraint techniques on persons being removed by air from the United Kingdom.

R (Detention Action) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 2245 (Admin); [2014] EWHC 2525 (Admin); [2014] EWCA Civ 1270 holding that the operation of the ‘Detained Fast Track’ process was unlawful because of the unacceptable risk of unfairness arising from its operation.

R (Das) v SSHD (Mind and Medical Justice intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 45; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 3538 on the correct interpretation of the Home Office’s policy on the detention of those suffering from serious mental illness.

Joland Giwa v SSHD [2013] EWHC 3189 (Admin). Reasonableness of ongoing detention of foreign national said to be a gang leader awaiting deportation.  Held to be reasonable with warning that it would become unlawful within a few months if still detained.

R (Muqtaar) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 1270, [2013] 1 WLR 649. Primarily unsuccessful appeal concerning long-term administrative detention of a foreign national offender. Appellant defeated argument by SSHD that a statutory ouster absolved the SSHD of liability in any event.  Application now pending in ECtHR, communicated by the ECtHR on 15/10/2014.

Hussein II v UK, Application No. 19352/12. First case communicated by ECtHR to challenge systemic defects in UK’s detention regime for immigrants. Pending before ECtHR

Lumba and Mighty v SSHD [2011] UKSC 12, [2011] 2 WLR (successful Supreme Court challenge to detention pursuant to an unlawful hidden policy, overturning line of authority which had held causation to be a defence to false imprisonment.

R (Kambadzi) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 23, [2011] 1 WLR 1299 in which the Supreme Court held that a failure to carry out detention reviews, without more, rendered detention unlawful.

R (Abdi) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 242; Times, March 11, 2011 (successful challenge to the detention of a former foreign national prisoner, guidance given on the relevance of time spent on appeal).

R (Suppiah and Others) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin) (test challenge to the Home Office’s policy and practice concerning detention of families with children;  partially successful).  

R (MD (Angola) & Others) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 1238, which challenged the detention and treatment of immigration detainees who were HIV positive.

R (U) v SIAC [2010] EWHC 813 Judicial review of whether SIAC's decision to revoke the U's bail had unlawfully applied a 'precautionary approach' to the question of whether to grant bail and had been influenced by closed material

R (U) v. Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2010] 2 W.L.R. 1012, DC:  The Divisional Court held SIAC was not, by virtue of its status as a superior court of record, immune from judicial review by the High Court; SIAC's decision to revoke the U's bail solely on the basis of closed evidence violated his rights under Article 5(4) ECHR and therefore fell to be quashed

R (S and Others) v SSHD [2007] EWHC 1654 (Admin) (successful challenge to the immigration detention of a family with children).

« Back to Immigration Detention

About cookies on our website

Following a revised EU directive on website cookies, each company based, or doing business, in the EU is required to notify users about the cookies used on their website.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site and to allow the use of specific functionality like social media page sharing. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended.

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)