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

Immigration detention pending deportation is lawful only while deportation remains realistically achievable within a reasonable period and the Secretary of State acts with reasonable diligence and expedition. The reasonable period depends on all the circumstances, including the length of detention, obstacles to removal, the steps taken to overcome them, the detainee’s circumstances, the risk of absconding and the risk of further offending. Where the evidence shows little prospect of progress in the immediate future, continued detention becomes unlawful, even if there are substantial risks requiring stringent bail conditions.

The claimant, a Nigerian national detained pending deportation after serving a sentence for dishonesty offences, sought interim relief on the basis of the Hardial Singh principles. He had been detained for nearly 17 months. Nigeria had accepted his nationality but had not issued travel documentation, apparently because of changes and absences among officials at the Nigerian High Commission and concerns about his medical appointments.

The claimant suffered from chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and other medical conditions. The Secretary of State provided no evidence addressing the progress or prospects of removal. The issue was whether continued detention remained lawful in circumstances where removal was not shown to be imminent.

1. Application granted. The court admitted the claimant to bail, subject to stringent conditions, and gave liberty to apply concerning their precise terms. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
2. The court applied the four principles derived from Governor of Durham Prison v Hardial Singh [1984] WLR 704 and R (on application of I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] INLR 196: detention must be for the purpose of deportation; it must last no longer than is reasonable; it must cease when deportation cannot be effected within a reasonable period; and the Secretary of State must act with reasonable diligence and expedition.
3. Relevant considerations included the length of detention, the nature of the obstacles to deportation, the diligence and effectiveness of the steps taken to overcome them, the conditions of detention, the effect on the detainee and his family, the risk of absconding and the danger of further offending. The claimant’s limited life expectancy gave the case particular urgency.
4. Although there were real risks of absconding and further offending, the claimant’s regular need for medical review weighed against absconding, and his previous offending involved no violence. The Secretary of State had produced no evidence showing that removal was progressing or that detention was likely to achieve removal within a reasonable period.
5. The court accepted the analogy with Sivakumaran 2005] IAR 35, where detention during fruitless negotiations had been held unlawful. In the present case, the evidence suggested that the removal process had returned to its position almost a year earlier. Continued detention was therefore unlawful, notwithstanding the possibility of a future interview by Nigerian officials.