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

The claimant challenged the lawfulness of his immigration detention from 3 December 2011 to 21 March 2012 and sought damages for unlawful detention and breaches of Convention rights. The court found that the Secretary of State and the contracted healthcare providers repeatedly failed to identify, record, assess and manage the claimant's florid psychosis (diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia). The Secretary of State's officers proceeded with detention, transfers and fast-track asylum processing without adequate psychiatric assessment, without issuing or acting upon a Rule 35 report or revised IS91 risk assessments, and despite material evidence (including two independent psychiatric reports) that the claimant lacked capacity and required hospital-level assessment and treatment.

Applying the Hardial Singh principles and the SSHD's detention policy (including EIG 55.10), the judge concluded that detention was Wednesbury unreasonable and unlawful throughout. The claimant was also found to have suffered breaches of Articles 3 and 8 ECHR arising from failures to provide adequate treatment and from the manner of detention. The court awarded declaratory relief and directed an assessment of damages (to be undertaken by the judge if the parties cannot agree).

Background and parties: The claimant, a Ghanaian overstayer arrested on 3 December 2011 after behaving in a disturbed manner, was detained first in police custody and then in Colnbrook and Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centres until release on 21 March 2012. He alleged unlawful detention and breaches of Articles 3 and 8 ECHR due to failures to apply detention policy and to assess and treat his serious mental illness. The Secretary of State and contractors operating IRC healthcare provided the principal factual and legal contest.

Nature of the claim/application: Judicial review of the decisions to detain and maintain detention; claim for damages for false imprisonment and for breaches of Convention rights; complaint of procedural failures (lack of Rule 34/35 reports, failures to reissue IS91) and challenge to inclusion in the Detained Fast Track.

Issues for the court:

• Whether, on the available medical and custodial material, the claimant was suffering from a serious mental illness that could not be satisfactorily managed in detention (EIG 55.10/HARDIAL SINGH analysis);
• whether individual detention decisions and reviews were lawful and Wednesbury reasonable given psychiatric evidence and care-provider failures;
• whether the SSHD and contracted healthcare providers complied with Detention Centre Rules, PACE Code C as applied, and the public sector equality duty;
• whether the failings engaged Articles 3 and 8 and entitled the claimant to substantial damages.

Court's reasoning and findings (concise): The court undertook detailed fact-finding across four detention phases. From first police contact the claimant displayed florid psychosis; independent psychiatric assessments (Professor Katona and others) demonstrated severe psychotic symptoms, cognitive impairment and lack of capacity. The Secretary of State and IRC healthcare repeatedly failed to: obtain or transmit Rule 35 reports; issue revised IS91 risk assessments; ensure timely psychiatric assessment; monitor and administer prescribed antipsychotic medication; or consider hospital admission under the Mental Health Act. CNLIT and DEPMU authorised transfers and continued detention without up-to-date psychiatric information; Harmondsworth healthcare gave inaccurate assurances that the claimant was fit to be detained and fit to fly. The court held that the detention decisions were unlawful (Wednesbury unreasonable and procedurally defective), that Articles 3 and 8 rights were breached by the sustained failures in assessment and care, and that the claimant is entitled to substantial damages. The judge directed a damages assessment (paper or oral) if parties cannot agree.

The claim succeeded. The court held that the claimant's detention from 3 December 2011 to 21 March 2012 was unlawful: each decision to detain or to maintain detention was Wednesbury unreasonable and failed to take into account material psychiatric facts. The Secretary of State and the contracted healthcare providers failed to provide adequate assessment, monitoring and treatment (including failure to issue or act on Rule 35/IS91 updates), and those failures breached Articles 3 and 8 ECHR. The claimant is entitled to damages; the judge will undertake assessment if parties do not agree figures.