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

Continued immigration detention is lawful only while the Hardial Singh principles are satisfied. The Secretary of State must intend removal, detention must remain reasonable, removal must be realistically achievable within that period, and reasonable diligence must be used. The court must decide the issue for itself, considering all relevant circumstances, including absconding risk, reoffending risk, the detainee’s conduct and, where appropriate, the place and conditions of detention.

A published policy under which serious sexual offenders normally remain in prison rather than an immigration removal centre is not unlawful if it requires an individual assessment and consideration of exceptional circumstances. Procedural failures do not themselves invalidate detention where they had no causative effect. Lawful statutory detention in prison does not found damages for false imprisonment or breach of Article 5 merely because detention in an immigration removal centre might have been preferable.

The claimant, a Zimbabwean national convicted of a serious sexual offence and subject to a deportation order, was detained after completing the custodial part of his sentence from 19 June 2009 until his voluntary return on 3 April 2010. He challenged the legality and duration of his detention, contending that removal was pursued without reasonable diligence and that he should have been held in an immigration removal centre rather than prison.

He also challenged the relevant Enforcement Instructions and Guidance policy, the decision-making process, and the availability of damages for false imprisonment or under Article 5 of the ECHR. The central issues were whether detention breached the Hardial Singh principles, whether detention in prison was unlawful, and whether any unlawfulness could support damages.

1. Detention pending removal. Applying the principles in R (Hardial Singh) v Governor of Durham Prison [1984] 1 WLR 704, the court held that the claimant’s initial and continued detention were lawful. Removal was achievable within a reasonable period, the Secretary of State acted with reasonable diligence apart from a limited period of delay, and there was a substantial risk of absconding and a significant risk of further serious sexual offending.
2. The court had to consider all relevant circumstances, including the place and conditions of detention. Risk of absconding was not determinative, and the reasons given by immigration judges on bail applications were relevant but not binding. The claimant’s conduct, the prospects of removal and the risks posed by release were material to the overall assessment.
3. Policy and transfer to an immigration removal centre. The policy in section 55.10 of the EIG was not an unlawful blanket policy. It permitted serious sexual offenders to remain in prison in exceptional circumstances, but required individual assessment and reasons for refusing a requested transfer. The policy was therefore lawful.
4. The Secretary of State failed to complete the initial assessment before detention and failed to give timely reasons. However, a proper individual assessment was carried out on 27 September 2009, and the later decision that the claimant should remain in prison was lawful and rational. No conscientious decision-maker applying the policy properly could reasonably have concluded that transfer was appropriate. The procedural failures therefore had no causative impact.
5. Damages. Even if detention had been unlawful under the Hardial Singh principles, the court would have awarded modest damages under Article 5 only if necessary for just satisfaction, but would not have awarded damages for false imprisonment. Where detention was lawfully authorised by statute, detention in prison rather than an immigration removal centre did not infringe a residual liberty giving rise to false imprisonment.
6. Applying R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 58, lawful detention was not converted into an Article 5, Article 3 or Article 8 breach merely because the detainee alleged that different conditions should have applied. The judicial review claim was dismissed.