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

Certification of an asylum or human-rights claim as clearly unfounded is lawful where the evidence and findings make it virtually inevitable that an appeal would fail. A material internal-relocation alternative may independently justify certification, including where it also answers an Article 8 claim. A detention policy requiring independent evidence of torture is not engaged by medical evidence which merely records injuries as compatible with an account of torture and raises that possibility. A breach of detention policy may nevertheless yield nominal damages where lawful detention could have been maintained on exceptional grounds.

The claimant sought permission to bring judicial review of the refusal and certification of his asylum and human-rights claims under section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. He also claimed damages for allegedly unlawful detention between 12 September and 27 October 2015. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Cheema-Grubb J. The renewed application challenged the assessment of state protection and internal relocation, and contended that continued detention breached the defendant’s policy concerning persons who might have been tortured.

1. Certification. The renewed challenge was unarguable. The Secretary of State had considered the claimant’s evidence and country material and had concluded, applying the protection test identified in Horvath v Secretary of State Home Department [2000] UKHL 37, that India provided a sufficiency of protection. The claimant had not reported the alleged treatment to the police or tried other police stations.
2. The finding that the claimant could relocate internally in India was unchallenged. That finding independently meant that an appeal would be bound to fail and also defeated the asserted Article 8 case, since relocation meant that the necessary level of interference with private life was absent. The certification challenge was therefore rejected.
3. Detention. The relevant policy did not require release merely because a rule 35 report existed. It required independent evidence that the claimant had been tortured before the special detention consideration was triggered. The 2008 hospital records showed injuries but did not connect them with torture. The GP’s report stated only that the account was compatible with the examination findings and that the injuries might result from torture. That fell far short of independent evidence of torture.
4. Although there might have been very exceptional circumstances justifying continued detention, there was no need to decide that issue because the policy threshold was not met. The judge nevertheless observed, applying R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245, that any damages for detention capable of lawful continuation would have been nominal. Permission was refused on the detention ground also. The existing costs order continued.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Cheema-Grubb J refused permission on the papers on 11 December 2015. On renewal, the Deputy Judge refused permission for slightly different reasons.