Let us start here and remember the law is there to protect. Ignore this moron.
The High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Home Secretary against an award of damages amounting to £98,757.04 to a refugee for unlawful detention and a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case, Secretary of State for the Home Department v Almas [2025] EWHC 212 (KB), upheld the decision of the lower court, which also awarded indemnity costs against the Home Secretary, a ruling that was not challenged.
Background
The claimant, a national of Pakistan, arrived in the UK in 2004 and later overstayed her visa. She subsequently claimed asylum, but her application was rejected in March 2015 and certified as clearly unfounded, preventing her from appealing the refusal. She made further submissions in May 2015, though these were not lodged in person in Liverpool as required by the Home Office. In 2017, she made further submissions and requested an exemption from travelling to Liverpool, but the Home Office neither accepted nor rejected these, merely keeping them on file.
In January 2018, the claimant’s son was recognised as a refugee following a successful appeal in which she had provided evidence. Despite this, she was detained on 9 April 2018 while reporting to the Home Office and was held until 23 April 2018, when officials realised that further submissions were still outstanding. She was eventually granted refugee status in February 2021.
Claim for Damages
The claimant sought damages for unlawful detention (false imprisonment) and for the breach of her Article 8 right to a private life due to the Home Office’s delay in making a decision on her case. This delay restricted her ability to work, travel, and move freely, while also requiring her to reside at one address and report monthly.
The Recorder identified multiple failures in the detention process, including the absence of any consideration of alternatives to detention. Notably, official documents contained blank sections where reasons for detention should have been recorded. Additionally, the risk of absconding had been overstated, given the claimant’s history of compliance with reporting requirements. Despite a review on 16 April 2018 that acknowledged outstanding further submissions and lowered her risk level, she remained in detention for a further week. The Recorder concluded that this amounted to a breach of Home Office detention policy, rendering her detention unlawful.
Regarding the Article 8 claim, the Recorder found that the restrictions imposed on the claimant engaged her right to a private life. The Home Secretary failed to provide evidence that these restrictions were lawful, necessary, and proportionate, leading to a finding in the claimant’s favour.
The claimant was awarded £98,757.04 in total, including aggravated and exemplary damages.
The Appeal
The Home Secretary appealed on several grounds, but the High Court rejected them all. Crucially, the Home Secretary did not argue that the claimant had been lawfully detained from 16 to 23 April 2018, effectively conceding that this period of detention was unlawful.
The first ground of appeal challenged the initial period of detention, with the Home Secretary arguing that there were no viable alternatives since the claimant had refused voluntary removal. The court dismissed this argument, stating that refusal to leave voluntarily is a relevant factor but not a decisive one. The court criticised the failure to consider alternatives to detention and noted that the risk of absconding had been assessed incorrectly, with policy-compliant records not maintained.
The Home Secretary also sought to challenge the award of aggravated damages, despite having previously conceded that such an award was appropriate. The High Court dismissed this challenge, noting that no evidence had been provided to support the assertion that the amount should be limited to half the basic damages.
Similarly, the Home Secretary appealed against the exemplary damages award of £12,000, arguing that such awards are only made in cases of outrageous or extraordinary abuses of power. The court firmly rejected this argument, emphasising that the claimant’s right to liberty had been at stake. The court highlighted systemic failings in the Home Office’s approach to detention decisions, describing them as “wholesale” and criticising the lack of accountability or internal investigation into the case.
The Home Secretary also sought to appeal the Article 8 damages on limitation grounds, arguing that the claim was brought outside the 12-month deadline. However, the court found this argument to be legally unsound, given that the challenged delay extended from June 2018 to February 2021 and the claim was issued in February 2021. The Home Secretary then attempted to reframe the argument mid-appeal, but the court dismissed this, stating that the argument was “bad in law.”
Furthermore, the Home Secretary challenged the finding that Article 8 rights were engaged and contended that the court should not impose a timescale for decision-making. While the Home Office cited the volume of cases and limited resources as justification for delays, the court ruled that the key issue was the failure to submit evidence before the Recorder. The High Court found that the Recorder’s six-month timeframe for decision-making was neither illogical nor inappropriate.
History of UK Governments Losing Similar Cases
The UK government has a long history of losing cases related to unlawful detention and immigration policy failures. In R (Detention Action) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014], the High Court found that the fast-track asylum system was operating unlawfully, depriving asylum seekers of their right to a fair hearing. Similarly, in R (Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court ruled that the Home Office had unlawfully imposed electronic curfews on individuals without legal authority.
Another notable case, R (EO & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013], found that the Home Office had unlawfully detained asylum seekers for prolonged periods without sufficient justification. These cases reflect systemic failings in the Home Office’s handling of immigration enforcement and the repeated failure to adhere to legal safeguards designed to protect fundamental rights.
In summary, this case highlights the gap between government rhetoric on immigration enforcement and the reality of unlawful detentions. It serves as a reminder that wrongful detention not only causes human suffering but also carries significant financial costs.
A key issue in this case is whether the certification of the claimant’s asylum claim in 2015 delayed her recognition as a refugee. If she had been allowed to appeal then, she might have obtained refugee status much earlier. The difficulty in challenging certified refusals means that many individuals remain in limbo far longer than necessary.
Finally, it is worth noting that many detainees are unable to access legal representation, making this claimant relatively fortunate. The judgement underscores the importance of legal safeguards against the misuse of immigration detention powers.
Source: FreeMovement
