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

Detention pending deportation remains lawful where deportation is a realistic prospect, the period of detention remains reasonable, and the Secretary of State has acted with reasonable diligence and expedition. The assessment is overall and does not require every stage of a difficult case to have been handled impeccably. A detainee’s repeated use of false identities, provision of false information, refusal to provide information needed for removal, and breach of release conditions may be highly material to the length and continuing lawfulness of detention.

The claimant challenged the lawfulness of his detention pending deportation, including earlier periods and his continued detention. He had used multiple identities, made inconsistent nationality claims, supplied a false birth certificate, resisted attempts to obtain information needed for removal, and twice absconded after release.

By the hearing, there was a fingerprint match indicating Moroccan nationality and continuing engagement with the Moroccan authorities, although obtaining an emergency travel document was expected to be slow. The central issue was whether the detention satisfied the four principles governing detention pending deportation.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant’s detention was lawful and remained lawful.
2. The governing principles were those commonly known as the Hardial Singh principles, summarised in [2002] EWCA (Civ) 888 and approved in [2011] UKSC 12: the Secretary of State must intend to deport; detention may continue only for a period reasonable in all the circumstances; detention should cease if deportation cannot be effected within a reasonable period; and the Secretary of State must act with reasonable diligence and expedition.
3. Deportation remained a realistic prospect. The evidence showed a high success rate in obtaining Moroccan emergency travel documents, although applications involving uncooperative detainees could take many months.
4. The unusually long detention remained reasonable in the circumstances. The principal cause of delay was the claimant’s persistent use of false information and refusal to provide information relevant to establishing his identity and nationality. His conduct also made release inappropriate because he had twice breached release conditions and was highly likely to abscond again.
5. The Secretary of State had acted with reasonable diligence overall. There had been a period of limited activity between February and August 2009, but it was relatively short and had to be assessed in the context of a difficult case. The court should not assess the handling of such cases with an overcritical eye or require perfect administration at every stage.
6. The Secretary of State was awarded costs, subject to section 11 of the Access to Justice Act.