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

Immigration detention pending deportation is lawful only for the purpose of effecting removal and for a period reasonably necessary for that purpose. The Secretary of State must act with reasonable expedition. Whether detention has become excessive depends on all the circumstances, including the length of detention, obstacles to removal, official diligence, the detainee’s cooperation, and risks of absconding or reoffending. A period approaching 19 months was not yet unreasonable where the detainee had long resisted removal, there remained a realistic prospect of removal, and there was a substantial risk of absconding. The position must nevertheless be kept under close review.

The claimant, an Iranian national, had been detained under immigration powers after completing a sentence for using a false identity in a further asylum application. A deportation order was subsequently made, but removal was delayed because the claimant initially refused to assist in obtaining emergency travel documentation and his identity remained unverified.

He sought judicial review of his continuing detention and immediate release. By the hearing, he had expressed willingness to return and had contacted the Iranian authorities, but no emergency travel document had been obtained. The central issue was whether detention for approximately 19 months had become unlawful because removal had not been effected with sufficient expedition.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant’s detention was for the legitimate purpose of effecting deportation and had not, at the date of judgment, become unlawful.
2. Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, the statutory detention powers are subject to implied limits. Detention may continue only for a period reasonably necessary to carry out removal, and the Secretary of State must take the necessary steps with reasonable expedition. The court applied the principles in R v Durham Prison Governor exparte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704.
3. The reasonableness of detention is fact-sensitive. Relevant considerations include the length of detention, the nature of the obstacles to removal, the diligence, speed and effectiveness of official steps, the conditions and effects of detention, the risk of absconding, and the danger of further offending. The court relied on the guidance in R (On the Application of I) v The Secretary of State [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and R(A) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 804.
4. The Secretary of State’s earlier lack of diligence counted against continued detention. However, the claimant had refused to cooperate for many months, there was a real risk that he would abscond if released, and the evidence showed that removal remained achievable once his identity was established. Those factors meant that 19 months’ detention was not yet unreasonable.
5. The Secretary of State was required to do what was reasonably possible to arrange an interview with the Iranian authorities within as short a period as reasonably possible. Future detention had to be closely monitored, and a further challenge remained available if removal was not pursued timeously or detention became unduly long.