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

A detention policy breach makes detention unlawful where it is material to, and sufficiently closely related to, the decision to detain. It is unnecessary to prove that detention would certainly have been avoided without the breach. A medical examination required by Detention Centre Rules 2001 may provide independent evidence of torture and is closely connected with the detention decision. A trafficking policy does not require release where the only supporting evidence is an account already found inherently incredible.

The claimant, a Ugandan national, sought asylum after alleging torture in Uganda and domestic servitude and sexual exploitation in the United Kingdom. She was detained under the immigration detention and fast-track arrangements. Her asylum account was rejected as incredible, but she was later accepted as a refugee.

She claimed damages for false imprisonment, alleging breaches of policies concerning torture victims and trafficking victims. The issues were whether failure to provide a medical examination under Detention Centre Rules 2001 affected the lawfulness of detention, and whether the trafficking policy required her release.

1. Claim succeeded in part. The failure to apply rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 was material and the resulting detention was unlawful. Assessment of damages was deferred.
2. The correct test, drawn from Lumba [2011] UKSC 12 and Kambadzi [2001] UKSC 23, is whether the breach bears on and is relevant to the decision to detain, or whether the policy is sufficiently closely related to the statutory detention power to qualify its exercise. The claimant need not show that detention would certainly have been avoided without the breach.
3. The claimant had already stated that she had been tortured. The failure to ask the required question on admission, and to ensure that her apparent refusal of examination was informed, meant that rule 34 was not applied as intended. A proper examination would probably have revealed relevant scarring and led to release after a short assessment period.
4. The medical-examination policy was closely related to detention because medical evidence could corroborate torture allegations and indicate that continued detention was inappropriate. Detention became unlawful shortly after 16 January 2008 and remained so until release on bail on 19 March 2008.
5. The trafficking-policy claim failed. The later Poppy Project letter merely repeated an account already rejected as incredible and did not justify immediate release.

First-instance proceedings in the Administrative Court. No appeal from this judgment is stated.