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

The claimant challenged his detention under the Detained Fast Track (DFT). The court held that the claimant had been wrongfully detained because his case, as revealed at screening and later at substantive interview, was unsuitable for the DFT and the decision to detain him under that process was taken without rational explanation. The judge relied on DFT policy and the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (Chapter 55) principles concerning vulnerability and suitability for fast-track processing. Significant procedural defects included an unexplained reversal of the initial screening decision, absence or failure of legal representation at the substantive interview, interpreter and comprehension difficulties, and medical/psychological evidence pointing to cognitive impairment. The June 12, 2015 decision refusing protection was quashed as a nullity in consequence of the unfair process; the claimant was entitled to a declaration of unlawful detention for the whole period and to damages.

This judicial review concerned a Pakistani national detained and processed under the former Detained Fast Track (DFT) system. The claimant sought a declaration that his detention was unlawful, quashing of the decision refusing his claim for asylum/international protection, and damages.

The factual background set the claim against the broader legal history of the DFT: prior judicial scrutiny (including Detention Action and related decisions), suspension of the DFT, and guidance under Chapter 55 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. The claimant had been routed initially into the non-detained National Asylum Model (NAM) after screening, but an unexplained later decision led to detention in the DFT and a substantive interview carried out without his nominated legal representative present.

Issues framed by the court included:

• Whether the claimant’s case was identifiable at screening (or at substantive interview) as unsuitable for the DFT because of complexity or the claimant’s vulnerability;
• Whether the decision to detain from 18 May 2015 was lawful;
• Whether the decision of 12 June 2015 refusing protection should be quashed or left to be treated as a fresh claim.

The court’s reasoning: the screening interview and the claimant’s earlier written account contained sufficient material to alert the SSHD to the unsuitability of the case for fast-track disposal and to the claimant’s potential vulnerability (medical conditions, depression, memory loss, limited understanding of the process, and reliance on multiple, inconsistent representatives). The initial correct routing to NAM was later reversed without recorded justification. The substantive interview exhibited evident comprehension, concentration and interpreter difficulties and proceeded without effective legal support; these procedural defects created a real risk of unfairness. Medical and expert reports obtained later corroborated cognitive and psychiatric impairment consistent with the difficulties observed at interview. Given the unfair process and the unreliable nature of evidence produced under the DFT procedures in this case, the judge excluded weight being given to the substantive interview, quashed the June 12 decision as a nullity, declared detention unlawful from 18 May to 16 December 2015 and awarded the claimant damages, directing re-determination de novo of the protection claim without relying on the substantive interview answers.

The court emphasised that its decision was fact-specific and did not purport to establish a general rule, though it sits in a context of extensive authority criticising and curtailing aspects of the DFT.

The claim succeeded. The court declared that the claimant was unlawfully detained from 18 May 2015 to 16 December 2015 because his case was unsuitable for the Detained Fast Track and the decision to detain him was not rationally explained; the decision of 12 June 2015 refusing protection was quashed as a nullity and the protection claim must be determined afresh without relying on the claimant’s answers at the substantive interview.