Radha Naran Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This judicial review concerned claims for false imprisonment, unlawful detention and breaches of the Human Rights Act (Articles 5, 8 and 14) arising from the claimant's arrival at Heathrow on 23 May 2011, the suspension and cancellation of her leave to enter, her temporary and immigration detention and subsequent related decisions. Key statutory material included paragraph 2A of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration Rules (notably Rule/IR 41 and paras 320–321A) concerning entry clearance and the grounds for cancelling leave to enter.

The court found that the interviewing immigration officer (IO) concocted and falsified admissions recorded in the desk and further interview notes, that the claimant was repeatedly and improperly interviewed and bullied while exhausted and vulnerable, and that the IOs and a CIO acted to detain and seek removal on that false basis. The detention (23–28 May 2011), the refusal decision prepared on that basis and the related detention decisions were unlawful, irrational and ultra vires. The court also found material procedural failures, including inadequate disclosure and misleading/anonymous explanatory statements prepared for tribunal and judicial review processes.

Legally significant subsidiary findings included that the withdrawal decision of 28 May 2011 should have been notified and implemented (which would have restored leave to enter), that the later decision of 8 August 2011 was flawed and used to resist the judicial review, and that the First-tier Tribunal ultimately accepted the claimant's account and found no reliable evidential basis for the alleged admissions. The court awarded substantial general and aggravated damages for false imprisonment and HRA breaches together with exemplary damages for the oppressive misuse of public power.

Background and procedural posture. The claimant, an Indian national granted a visitor entry clearance on appeal, arrived at Heathrow on 23 May 2011. Immigration officers examined her at a primary checkpoint and, after recorded notes of a preliminary interview and a subsequent "further interview", suspended and then purported to cancel her leave to enter, refused admission, served removal directions and detained her. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the suspension, cancellation, refusal, detention and related actions, and sought declarations and damages for false imprisonment, misfeasance/abuse of power and breaches of Articles 5, 8 and 14. Two First-tier Tribunal appeals (and associated procedural steps) and the judicial review were all part of the factual and procedural landscape considered by the court.

Nature of the claim / relief sought:

• Declarations that the claimant was falsely imprisoned and unlawfully detained (23–28 May 2011);
• General, aggravated and exemplary damages for false imprisonment and unlawful detention; and
• Damages under section 6 of the Human Rights Act for breaches of Articles 5, 8 and 14.

Issues framed by the court. The judge set out and decided (inter alia): whether the preliminary and further interview notes recorded reliable admissions justifying suspension/cancellation of leave; whether the detention (temporary and immigration detention) was lawful, necessary and proportionate; whether the relevant IO(s) and CIOs acted for an ulterior purpose or in bad faith; whether the explanatory statement(s) and SSHD process concealed material facts; and the measure of damages if the claimant succeeded.

Court’s reasoning (concise account).

• The factual and documentary record showed serious shortcomings and deliberate concealment. The explanatory statement, author signatures/initials and the absence of witness statements and contemporaneous logs undermined the SSHD’s account.
• The primary interviewer (IO Newton) was found to have prepared and initialled documents and to have fabricated the crucial admissions (that the claimant intended to work sewing curtains) and to have, by repeated intimidating interviewing, sought to procure or create a basis for removal. The court accepted the claimant’s credible witness evidence, which matched findings by the First-tier Tribunal in the later appeal.
• The detention decisions were unlawful: they were made on concocted evidence, for an improper/ulterior purpose, were irrational and contrary to policy principles that detention be a last resort and proportionate. CIO Khan’s subsequent withdrawal decision (28 May 2011) should have restored the claimant’s leave to enter; instead inadequate steps were taken and the claimant remained on temporary admission with her passport retained.
• Procedural failures (non-disclosure of contemporaneous logs, anonymous/exculpatory explanatory statements, wrong or misleading forms and internal notes) evidenced an attempt to cover up unlawful conduct and to resist the litigation improperly.
• Given the unlawful detention and the aggravating features (fabrication, bullying, concealment and continued impoundment of the passport and litigation tactics), the claimant was entitled to significant awards for general, aggravated and exemplary damages and to declarations.

Relief granted and awards. The claim succeeded. The court awarded general and aggravated damages and HRA damages totalling £110,000, plus exemplary damages of £15,000, and made declarations that the detention was unlawful and ultra vires.

The claim succeeded. The court found the claimant had been unlawfully detained and falsely imprisoned between 23 and 28 May 2011 because immigration officers relied on fabricated interview admissions and pursued detention and removal for an ulterior, improper purpose. The SSHD’s subsequent procedural steps (including anonymous/explanatory statements, inadequate disclosure and a flawed fresh decision) compounded the misconduct. Declarations of unlawful detention were granted and damages awarded (£110,000 general/aggravated/HRA damages and £15,000 exemplary damages) to reflect the seriousness of the unlawful detention, the bad faith and the resulting interference with private and family life under Articles 5 and 8 (and Article 14 aspects).