Akinfoyewa, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A claim may be certified as manifestly unfounded where, on the material available when the decision is made, no realistic asylum or human-rights claim is disclosed. Later representations should not automatically be treated as part of the earlier decision. Where further medical evidence is anticipated, the Secretary of State must reconsider the claim as a whole when that evidence is received.

Detention policy requires particular care where there is evidence of torture or mental disorder. The decision-maker must balance that consideration against removal prospects, absconding risk and other relevant factors. Detention that was initially lawful may become unlawful as circumstances change, especially where the policy requires very exceptional circumstances for continued detention.

The claimant, a Nigerian citizen detained in the Oakington fast-track system, challenged the Secretary of State’s certification of his asylum and human-rights claim as manifestly unfounded and the continuing lawfulness of his detention.

The certification decision was made on 9 June 2005. Further representations, including a psychiatric report diagnosing PTSD, led to a letter dated 19 July 2005. The claimant was also awaiting assessment by the Medical Foundation. The issues were whether the original certification was arguably unlawful, whether the later letter formed part of the proceedings, and whether detention remained lawful as the claimant’s medical evidence and circumstances developed.

1. The application concerning the 9 June 2005 certification was dismissed and permission was refused. On the material then available, including the claimant’s account, the medical and background information, and the absence of evidence of continuing targeted pursuit, it was unarguable that the claim had been wrongly certified as manifestly unfounded. The asserted breaches of Article 3 and Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention could not, at that stage, sensibly found an arguable claim.

2. The 19 July 2005 letter was not treated as the decision under challenge. It was materially affected by the prospect of a further Medical Foundation report. The proper approach was for the Secretary of State to consider that report together with all other material and reach an overall view of the claim as it then stood. Any later refusal and certification would constitute a new judicially reviewable decision.

3. Detention was unarguably lawful up to 30 June 2005. The Secretary of State could properly regard removal as imminent and consider the claimant likely to abscond, given his lack of ties in the United Kingdom. The detention policy did not create rigid categories, but it placed particular weight on a history of torture, mental health problems and the presumption in favour of temporary admission or release.

4. Following receipt of Dr Seear’s report on 30 June, the position became arguable. The report indicated PTSD, attributed it to the attacks and raised concerns about the claimant’s condition on removal. The Secretary of State had not clearly analysed the balance between those matters, the policy’s requirement of very exceptional circumstances for continued detention, removal prospects, absconding risk, and the claimant’s need for support if released. Leave was therefore granted to apply for declaratory relief and a quashing order in respect of detention from 30 June 2005. The later bail decision and any subsequent Medical Foundation-based decision were left to be considered separately.