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

The court reviewed challenges to the lawfulness of immigration detention and the claimant's treatment while detained. Central legal principles considered were the Home Office Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (chapter 55), Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, the Hardial Singh principles on length and purpose of detention, and the Wednesbury standard for policy challenges. The court applied the Court of Appeal's interpretation in R (Das) v SSHD that "satisfactorily managed" within detention is not limited to hospitalisation or compulsory sectioning under the Mental Health Act 1983 and rejected a narrower test.

The judge found that a Rule 35 report of 30 June 2014 engaged a duty of enquiry which was not followed up promptly and that the Defendant misinterpreted chapter 55 in some reviews. However, until receipt of the Rule 35 report of 25 March 2015 it was open to the Secretary of State to conclude that the claimant's condition could be managed in detention. After that report the claimant could not be satisfactorily managed in detention and urgent transfer to hospital was required.

As a result the claim succeeded in part: detention was found unlawful for a limited period of unexplained delay (from 3 April 2015 to 27 April 2015). The broader challenges under Hardial Singh, Article 3 ECHR, direct breach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 were not made out on the evidence before the court.

Background and parties. The claimant is a Nigerian national detained under Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 on 11 June 2014. He had a documented history of serious mental illness and multiple prior admissions under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Secretary of State for the Home Department authorised and reviewed continued detention under the Home Office enforcement policy (chapter 55). The claimant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of detention and aspects of his treatment while detained.

Nature of the application and issues. The claimant sought declarations and relief on multiple grounds: (i) policy error or failure of enquiry under chapter 55 (in particular the requirement in paragraph 55.10 relating to those with serious mental illness which "cannot be satisfactorily managed within detention"); (ii) unlawful detention under the Hardial Singh principles (unreasonable length and absence of realistic prospect of removal); (iii) ill‑treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR; (iv) breach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; (v) discrimination under the Equality Act 2010; and (vi) procedural unfairness in detention reviews and segregation decisions.

Evidence and procedural posture. The court considered the detention records, medical notes including two Rule 35 reports (30 June 2014 and 25 March 2015), monthly detention review forms, and limited witness evidence from a Home Office officer for the post‑hospital period. The Defendant did not file witness evidence dealing with the period before transfer to hospital; the court took account of that procedural posture in assessing the duty of enquiry and burden issues.

Reasoning on the principal issues. The judge applied the Wednesbury test to the policy challenge but also recognised an objective element to the meaning of "satisfactorily managed" as explained in R (Das) v SSHD. The first Rule 35 report of 30 June 2014 together with earlier documentary evidence triggered a public law duty of fair enquiry which the court found was breached in the immediate aftermath of that report because the promised contact with mental health authorities was not evidenced. Notwithstanding that omission, the judge concluded that, on the material available to the decision‑maker at each monthly review, it was rationally open to the Secretary of State to conclude up to the time of the Rule 35 report of 25 March 2015 that the claimant could be managed within detention. The March 25 report, and the rapid deterioration around 21–23 March 2015, changed the position: after that point detention could no longer be justified on the basis that his condition could be satisfactorily managed in an IRC and urgent transfer to hospital was required.

Ancillary findings. The court considered and rejected wider claims: it did not find that the threshold for Article 3 was met on the evidence, it rejected the argument that immigration decisions falling solely to the Secretary of State must be made in the detained person's "best interests" under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and it did not find that systemic breach of the Equality Act 2010 or procedural unfairness was established in respect of this claimant over the relevant sustained period. The court accepted there is a potential systemic gap where long‑term fluctuating incapacity exists and noted that independent representation (for example IMCA‑type assistance) may be required in some cases, but declined to order a general remedy here.

Disposition and remedy. The court held that the detention was unlawful for a finite period consequent upon an unexplained delay in securing the claimant's transfer to hospital: unlawful detention was found from 3 April 2015 to 27 April 2015. Otherwise the claim failed. The judge reserved consequential remedies and invited the parties to agree orders.

First instance: the claim succeeded in part. The court held that the Secretary of State misinterpreted chapter 55 in some reviews and breached a duty of enquiry in the immediate aftermath of the Rule 35 report of 30 June 2014, but that until receipt of the Rule 35 report of 25 March 2015 it was rationally open to the Secretary of State to conclude the claimant could be satisfactorily managed in detention. After the 25 March 2015 Rule 35 report urgent transfer to hospital was required and there was an unexplained period of unlawful detention from 3 April 2015 to 27 April 2015. Other claims (Hardial Singh overall challenge, Article 3, direct breach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and discrimination under the Equality Act 2010) were not established on the available material.