AMG, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The court reviewed the lawfulness of immigration detention under the Immigration Act 1971, the application of the Secretary of State's detention policy in the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (in particular Chapter 55.10), the Hardial Singh principles on reasonable periods of detention, and the duty to have due regard under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The judge held that Chapter 55.10 applies to detention in dedicated immigration accommodation or prisons but not to detention in hospital, that the Secretary of State and her officials had sufficient information to reach informed decisions about management of AMG's mental illness, and that when deterioration occurred they took appropriate steps under the Mental Health Act 1983 (including assessments and transfers under section 48) and monitored him for signs of relapse.

The court found that errors in wording in contemporaneous Home Office minutes and some factual inaccuracies in reviews did not render detention unlawful because they would not have produced a different outcome. The period of detention after the Upper Tribunal decision of 4 October 2012 was not unlawful under the Hardial Singh principles: the re-hearing did not make it apparent that deportation could not be effected within a reasonable period and the risks of absconding and re-offending justified continued detention. The section 149 duty was addressed and not breached on the facts. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Background and parties: AMG, a Jamaican national with a history of serious offending and diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia, was the claimant seeking judicial review of the Secretary of State for the Home Department's decisions to detain him at various times between May 2012 and June 2013. The defendant was the Secretary of State. AMG had been subject to deportation orders and had earlier proceedings in the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. Permission for judicial review was granted and amended grounds were allowed to cover all periods of immigration detention.

Nature of the application: AMG sought declarations that his detention was unlawful on three grounds: (i) breach of the SSHD's policy (Chapter 55.10 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance) in relation to persons with serious mental illness; (ii) detention after 4 October 2012 was unlawful under the Hardial Singh principles because it was or should have been apparent that removal could not be effected within a reasonable period; and (iii) failure to have due regard under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Issues for decision (framed by the court): (i) whether Chapter 55.10 applied and had been lawfully applied to AMG's detention, including whether sufficient medical information had been obtained and whether detention in detention centres was capable of satisfactorily managing his illness; (ii) whether continued detention after 4 October 2012 breached the Hardial Singh reasonableness requirement; and (iii) whether the SSHD failed to discharge the duty in section 149 to have due regard to the needs arising from AMG's disability.

Key factual and procedural material: the judgment sets out AMG's criminal and mental health history, notes repeated absconding from hospital in the past, records medical opinions of relapse risk if treatment ceased, records the authorised transfers to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 (including reliance on section 48 admissions following second psychiatric opinions), and summarises the dates of detention reviews and tribunal activity (including an Upper Tribunal order for a re-hearing).

Court's reasoning and conclusions: the judge accepted the established propositions from authority that Chapter 55.10 addresses detention in removal centres and prisons (not hospital) and that the policy is engaged only where the mental illness cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention. The SSHD had sought and received clinicians' views and, on the material available at the initial decision, was entitled to conclude the illness was manageable in an IRC. When AMG deteriorated the Home Office and Harmondsworth health staff pursued assessment and transfer to hospital; reasonable delays in effecting transfers under section 48 were not unlawful. The Hardial Singh assessment took into account the duration of detention, obstacles to removal (including the re-hearing), the diligence of the SSHD, and the risks of absconding and re-offending; on that fact-sensitive assessment the detention remained within a reasonable period after 4 October 2012. On section 149, the SSHD had had due regard to AMG's mental illness and reasonably weighed the prospect of community care against the risks. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court concluded that (i) Chapter 55.10 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance applies to detention in immigration removal centres or prisons and not to detention in hospital; (ii) the Secretary of State obtained and considered relevant medical evidence, monitored AMG and took appropriate steps under the Mental Health Act 1983 when his condition deteriorated; (iii) detention after 4 October 2012 did not become unlawful under the Hardial Singh principles because there was no clear appearance that removal could not be effected within a reasonable period and there remained significant risks of absconding and re-offending; and (iv) there was no breach of the duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 on the facts.