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

The Detained Fast Track procedure does not impose rigid deadlines. Indicative timescales must be maintained as far as reasonably possible, but may be varied where fairness or case developments require it.

Whether detention and processing remain lawful depends on the individual circumstances. The decision-maker must consider whether a quick decision remains possible, whether exclusion criteria apply, and whether continued detention and allocation to the procedure remain suitable. A delayed interview does not, by itself, make detention or processing unlawful where suitability is regularly reviewed and rational reasons support continuation.

The claimant, a Pakistani national, sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision to process his asylum claim through the Detained Fast Track procedure and to detain him during that process.

He claimed asylum on 11 January 2013. He was assessed as suitable for the procedure on 17 January, but his asylum interview was postponed after healthcare staff considered him unfit on 28 January. The interview took place on 20 February and the claim was refused the following day. The claimant argued that the 34-day period exceeded the defendant’s policy and that suitability had not been properly reviewed. He also relied on the availability of release or removal from the procedure.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had alternative remedies, including applying to the First-tier Tribunal for removal from the Detained Fast Track procedure under rule 30 of the Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005, or applying for bail. He had used neither remedy.
2. The applicable policies did not create stringent or rigid deadlines. They contemplated decisions within indicative timescales, but required flexibility where fairness or developments in the case demanded it. The suitability of a case for fast-track processing and the appropriate timetable were fact-sensitive.
3. Applying R (Suckrajh) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal [2011] EWCA Civ 983 and HK (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 1357, the defendant was entitled to decide from the screening information that the issues could be resolved quickly and that the case was suitable for the procedure.
4. The defendant had considered the claimant’s medical circumstances, the postponed interview, requests for release and removal from fast track, and continued suitability. The letters and detention-review records showed regular and rational consideration of the relevant policies. The fact that the interview ultimately occurred outside the desired timetable did not make the detention or processing unlawful.
5. It was inappropriate to prescribe a generally suitable timeframe for fast-track cases because the assessment depended on the facts of each case. The defendant’s actions were fair and lawful.