Rashford v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A procedural defect in transferring an immigration detainee between places of detention does not, without more, make the detention unlawful or support damages for false imprisonment. The appropriate remedy for such a defect is ordinarily judicial review, which may provide declaratory or other public-law relief. The Secretary of State may direct detention in places permitted by Immigration Act 1971, Schedule 2, paragraph 18.1, including suitable prison accommodation. Lawful restraint used to maintain order does not constitute assault and battery. Damages under section 13 of the Data Protection Act require proof of damage caused by the contravention.

The claimant, a Jamaican national subject to deportation, brought claims arising from his detention and transfers between an immigration removal centre and prisons. He alleged false imprisonment, breaches of Articles 5 and 14 of the ECHR, assault and battery, loss of possessions and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

The principal legal issues were whether his transfers from Colnbrook Detention Centre to HMP Brixton and from HMP Brixton to HMP Wandsworth were unlawful, whether force used during incidents and transfers was unlawful, whether property had been wrongly removed, and whether personal information had been unlawfully disclosed.

1. Transfers and detention. Schedule 2, paragraph 18.1 of the Immigration Act 1971 authorised immigration detainees to be held in places directed by the Secretary of State. The evidence justified transferring the claimant from Colnbrook Detention Centre to HMP Brixton because of his persistent abusive, threatening and violent behaviour.
2. The court considered it strongly arguable, as a matter of general public law, that a detainee being moved from a detention centre to prison should receive reasons and an opportunity to make representations, because prison conditions are materially more restrictive and punitive in character. However, even if the transfer was procedurally defective, that defect did not invalidate the claimant’s continuing detention or found a claim for false imprisonment. Applying [2008] EWCA Civ 1204, the proper remedy was timely judicial review.
3. The Secretary of State was entitled to move the claimant within the prison estate. Any procedural defect in the transfer to HMP Wandsworth likewise could not support damages for false imprisonment or breach of Article 5.
4. The claimant failed to prove assault and battery. The officers’ evidence and contemporaneous records established that only lawful restraint had been used to maintain order, including during the disputed incidents and the transfer to Wandsworth.
5. The allegations concerning removed property were unsupported and inherently incredible. The Data Protection Act claim was inadequately particularised. There was no evidence of disclosure to other detainees, knowledge of the claimant’s conviction was not itself a breach, and no actual damage was proved as required by section 13. An alternative complaint to the Data Commissioner was also available under Part V, section 40.
6. The claims were dismissed.