IM (Nigeria), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interim relief in immigration detention applications is determined by the balance of convenience. The court may refuse release where the substantive appeal can be heard within a very short period and release would create practical uncertainties or unpredictabilities. It may instead address medical concerns by expediting the appeal. A detainee’s capacitous decision to adopt his present position and give advance directions about medical treatment is a relevant circumstance. It does not, in the circumstances, create an entitlement to interim release.

IM (Nigeria), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department concerned an application for interim relief during an appeal from an order of Ouseley J. The appellant sought release from immigration detention, subject to residence with a named friend and a £1,000 surety, so that he could attend hospital for urgent treatment. The court was also concerned by his serious medical condition and an end-of-life plan prepared at the detention centre. The substantive appeal could be heard the following Monday. The central issue was whether interim release was justified before that hearing.

1. Interim relief refused. The application was governed by the balance of convenience. The court considered the timing of the substantive appeal, the practical uncertainties surrounding release, the appellant’s medical condition and the circumstances in which he had chosen to remain in his present position.
2. The full appeal could be listed in the Court of Appeal within a few days. That short timescale materially reduced the need for interim release. The proposed release also involved uncertainties and unpredictabilities. In those circumstances, the balance did not favour directing release from detention.
3. The appellant’s serious condition and the existence of an end-of-life plan caused the court concern. The appropriate response was to ensure that the appeal was heard rapidly, rather than to grant interim relief before the imminent hearing.
4. The appellant had made his decisions with full capacity, including adopting his present position and giving advance directions concerning medical treatment. That was his prerogative, but the consequences of those decisions did not entitle him to interim relief on the facts then existing.
5. Relief was refused. Expedition was directed, the appeal was to be heard on the following Monday, and counsel were required to exchange skeleton arguments and agree the judgment where possible.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the interim relief application, the court refused release from immigration detention, directed expedition and ordered that the substantive appeal be heard on the following Monday: [2013] EWCA Civ 1737.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: The appellant appealed an order of Ouseley J. The judgment does not state the citation of that order. Permission to appeal had been granted by the judge.