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

A claim may become academic where the challenged decision has been quashed or is under reconsideration and the claimant is likely to obtain the practical outcome sought without judicial determination of the wider issue. The court may nevertheless keep the claim alive and adjourn it where a further adverse decision could revive a live dispute. The court should not design a replacement administrative scheme for the Government or Parliament. Where proceedings remain unresolved, costs may be left open or dealt with separately from the costs of the interim hearing.

The claimant challenged the revocation of his Home Detention Curfew licence under Crime and Disorder Act 1988 provisions. After the claim was permitted to proceed, the Secretary of State accepted that the decision upholding the recall was flawed and offered a further review. The claimant maintained that the structure of the revocation procedure was incompatible with human rights, including Article 5.4 of the European Convention.

The preliminary issue was whether the claim had become academic, and what procedural and costs orders should follow while the further review remained outstanding.

1. The claim was academic in substance at that stage. The Secretary of State had accepted that the decision upholding the recall was flawed and proposed to reconsider the claimant’s representations. There remained a strong possibility that the claimant would serve the balance of his custodial sentence on Home Detention Curfew. A challenge to the initial revocation procedure under section 38A(1) was no longer pursued in the present form.
2. The court would not proceed with the substantive hearing immediately. Since the claim might become live again if the further review produced an adverse decision, the proper course was to keep it alive and adjourn it pending that review.
3. The decision upholding the recall was quashed. If the Secretary of State allowed the claimant’s appeal or review, the proceedings would stand dismissed, with disposal capable of taking place on paper. If the decision were maintained, the claimant could make further submissions and the claim could return for final hearing.
4. The court would not itself prescribe a compliant structure for the Home Detention Curfew procedure. The formulation of such a structure was a matter for Government and Parliament, subject to the court’s role in determining the legal issues properly arising.
5. There was no order as to costs in the proceedings to date, including the present hearing. Costs of the proceedings as a whole were left unresolved, to be addressed in light of the outcome of the review and any subsequent proceedings.

The claim was brought by judicial review. Permission was granted after the claimant surrendered himself. The Administrative Court determined the preliminary issue and adjourned the claim pending the Secretary of State’s further review.