Amougou -Mbarga, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration detention pending deportation remains lawful only while it serves the purpose of removal, lasts no longer than is reasonable, and is pursued with reasonable diligence and expedition. Deliberate misinformation is materially different from simple non-co-operation and may extend the reasonable detention period. Administrative delay becomes unlawful only when it crosses the line into unreasonable delay. A claimant seeking damages must identify a specific period during which detention would have ended but for the alleged failure.

The claimant sought a declaration and damages for allegedly unlawful immigration detention from 22 October 2010 until his removal to Cameroon on 5 March 2012. He had been detained for four years and two days in total and had repeatedly asserted different identities and nationalities. Earlier removal attempts had failed.

The central issue was whether, after he acknowledged that he was Cameroonian, the Secretary of State should have released him or removed him sooner, or was entitled to continue detention while verifying his account and arranging effective removal.

1. Outcome. The claim for a declaration of unlawful detention, damages and costs was dismissed.
2. The statutory power to detain under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 had to comply with the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Hardial Singh [1984] 1AER 983, as restated in R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] INLR 196 and approved in R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others [2011] UKSC 21.
3. Refusal to co-operate differed from deliberate misinformation. Following R (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2249 (Admin), the claimant’s deceptive conduct could contribute to the length of the reasonable detention period.
4. The claimant’s repeated deception had confused the authorities and defeated earlier removals. It was therefore reasonable and necessary to detain him until reliable documentation, evidence and arrangements were in place for effective removal. Administrative delays did not amount to unlawful delay.
5. Applying R v Krasniqi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1549, a retrospective administrative failure did not itself establish damages. A specific period of otherwise unlawful detention had to be shown.