For the claimant: Dylan Conrad Kreolle
For the defendant: In-house solicitor
For the claimant: M Biggs
For the defendant: A Byass
R (on the application of OBIH) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (2016)
QBD (Admin) (Elisabeth Laing J) 15/04/2016
DETENTION PENDING DEPORTATION : INTERIM RELIEF : LAWFULNESS OF DETENTION
It was not appropriate to release a claimant from immigration detention pending his removal to Nigeria where the evidence was that, despite the claimant’s lack of cooperation, travel documents could be obtained within one or two months, and there was a serious risk that if released he would abscond and/or reoffend.
The claimant applied for interim relief, namely his release from immigration detention.
The claimant Nigerian national had been serving a two-and-a-half year prison sentence. In January 2016, when he was due to be released, the defendant secretary of state detained him under a deportation order. The claimant challenged the deportation order in the Upper Tribunal, who dismissed his judicial review, certifying it as totally without merit. The claimant sought to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal.
The claimant submitted that his detention breached Hardial Singh principles on the basis that his removal was not imminent because his application for permission to appeal was pending, and because he had not exhausted all of his appeal rights.
HELD: The question was whether, taking into account the fact that the secretary of state had not yet had time to put in her grounds of defence, there were compelling grounds for thinking that the claimant’s detention was unlawful. The secretary of state had made efforts to obtain travel documents, but a telephone interview had to be cancelled due to the claimant’s lack of cooperation. The secretary of state would not remove the claimant while he had an outstanding right of appeal, but given that the judicial review had been certified as entirely without merit, it was very unlikely to succeed. During his monthly detention reviews, the secretary of state considered that he could be removed within a reasonable time, and that travel documents could be obtained within one or two months. Further, the secretary of state had found that there was a serious risk that the claimant would abscond and/or reoffend. Considering his previous offending history and the fact that he had been sentenced to imprisonment for two-and-a half years, it could not be said that that finding was irrational, R. (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 12 followed.
LTL 15/4/2016 EXTEMPORE