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

Immigration detention remains lawful where there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period, the authorities have acted with reasonable diligence and expedition, and the risks posed by release justify continuing detention. A temporary impediment caused by the absence of travel documentation does not necessarily make removal unrealistic, particularly where the foreign authorities are actively processing the case. The detainee’s lack of cooperation may be relevant to the delay. The presumption of liberty may be outweighed by substantial risks of absconding and reoffending.

The claimant, a Gambian national, sought permission to apply for judicial review of his immigration detention. He had completed a custodial sentence and was subject to automatic deportation, but removal was delayed because the Gambian emergency travel-document process was partially suspended. He argued that removal was no longer imminent and that the defendant had failed to act with reasonable diligence and expedition. This was a renewed application after permission had been refused on the papers.

1. Permission refused. The claimant failed to establish an arguable case that his detention breached the Hardial Singh principles.
2. There remained a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period. The Gambian authorities were actively processing the claimant’s emergency travel-document application. The temporary suspension of the general process arose from administrative resource difficulties and did not create an apparent permanent impediment to removal.
3. The evidence included a photocopy of the claimant’s lost passport, assisting proof of his identity and nationality. Although the Gambian authorities had identified inconsistencies in the claimant’s information, there was no dispute that he was Gambian and no sufficient basis to conclude that removal was unrealistic.
4. The delay was not attributable solely to the defendant. Voluntary return remained available throughout the suspension, and the claimant could have sought a new passport but chose not to do so. The evidence did not come close to establishing a lack of diligence or unreasonable delay by the defendant.
5. The presumption of liberty was outweighed by the significant risk of absconding and reoffending. The claimant had previously failed to comply with reporting requirements, had left the United Kingdom without notifying the authorities, had been convicted of five drug-related offences, and had displayed aggressive and threatening behaviour.
6. The application for permission was refused. The judge declined to make any order for costs.

This was a renewed first-instance application for permission to apply for judicial review, following refusal on the papers. No appeal or earlier substantive judgment is stated.