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

The claimant, an overstayer with prior criminal convictions and an established diagnosis of schizo-affective disorder, challenged the lawfulness of his immigration detention while he engaged in food and fluid refusal. The principal legal issues were the application of Chapter 55.10 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance to detainees with serious mental illness, the effect of a detainee's capacity and refusal of treatment on the Secretary of State's duties, compliance with Rule 35 and the Detention Centre Rules 2001, the Hardial Singh principles governing the reasonableness of detention, and compatibility with s149 Equality Act 2010 and Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR.

The court found that the defendant had adopted a rational and lawful decision‑making process: there was an inconsistent and confused clinical picture, substantial evidence that the claimant retained capacity and was engaging in protest, and a realistic risk of absconding and harm. The Court concluded that the claimant’s detention was not rendered unlawful by the asserted policies or by the medical evidence and that relevant policy and legal principles (including the authority of IM and the Hardial Singh principles) supported the Secretary of State’s approach.

Background and parties: The claimant (C) arrived in the United Kingdom in 2007 and overstayed. Between 2008 and 2012 he incurred several criminal convictions culminating in a 12‑month sentence for involvement in Class A drug supply. While in custody he was diagnosed with schizo‑affective disorder and prescribed antipsychotic medication. Following completion of his sentence he was detained under immigration powers and served with a deportation order. He later engaged in prolonged food and fluid refusal while detained in an Immigration Removal Centre (Harmondsworth). The Secretary of State (D) maintained detention pending removal. The claimant sought judicial review of continued detention.

Procedural history: Urgent interim applications were heard in July 2013: Burnett J and Lang J refused interim relief; Jeremy Baker J subsequently ordered bail and transfer to hospital ([2013] EWHC 2980 (Admin)), after which the claimant was medically assessed and discharged. The claimant then pursued the present substantive judicial review in the High Court.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimant argued that detention from November 2012 to 19 July 2013 was unlawful on five grounds: (1) breach of the Secretary of State’s policy in Chapter 55.10 (serious mental illness unsuitable for detention); (2) unlawful food/fluid policy incompatible with s149 Equality Act 2010; (3) breach of the Hardial Singh principles; (4) failure to comply with Detention Centre Rules 2001 and Rule 35; (5) breach of Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 ECHR. The claimant sought declarations and relief quashing the detention decisions.

Issues framed by the court: The parties agreed six core questions including whether the claimant’s mental health could be managed in detention, applicability of Chapter 55.10 and Rule 35 during food/fluid refusal, lawfulness of detention post‑1 July 2013 under Hardial Singh, and compatibility with s149 and Articles 2/3/8.

Court’s reasoning and findings: The court reviewed the medical records, contemporaneous management decisions and relevant policy (EIG chapter 55.10, DSO 03/2013, Rule 35 procedures), and authorities including the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Das and the decision in IM. The judge found the clinical picture confused and inconsistent: there were multiple observations of improvement, uncertain weight records, intermittent fluid intake and instances suggesting deliberate protest. The claimant was repeatedly assessed as retaining capacity. The court emphasised that where a detainee with capacity refuses medical treatment, the policy in Chapter 55.10 does not automatically require release and the case may fall outside the policy if the detainee declines treatment. The Hardial Singh factors and the risk of absconding and public protection were properly considered by officials. The decision makers were entitled to treat the medical evidence with appropriate scepticism where records were inconsistent. On that basis the court concluded the Secretary of State acted lawfully, the policy was applied reasonably, and the detention was not unlawful.

Wider comments: The court noted the narrow circumstances in which detention of a capacitated detainee refusing treatment will be unlawful, and reiterated that careful medical inquiry and attention to vulnerability are required when detaining persons with mental illness, but that capacity and voluntary refusal of treatment are material to the scope of Chapter 55.10.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the Secretary of State’s decisions to continue detention were lawful. The medical evidence was inconsistent and did not establish that the claimant lacked capacity or that his mental illness could not be satisfactorily managed in detention; the claimant’s refusal of treatment and food/fluid appeared to be, at least in part, a capacitated protest and there were proper Hardial Singh and public protection considerations. The authority of IM and other precedent supported the defendant’s position.

The judgment records interlocutory hearings in July 2013. Burnett J considered an urgent application and declined interim relief; Lang J refused interim relief on 9 July 2013; Swift J ordered an urgent oral hearing; Jeremy Baker J granted bail and ordered transfer to hospital ([2013] EWHC 2980 (Admin)). The present decision is a substantive High Court judgment ([2015] EWHC 2754 (Admin)).