Nyamwaya, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

Release from immigration detention makes claims for immediate release and habeas corpus academic. An injunction restraining removal cannot be permanent, because future removal must be assessed against the facts existing at the time. Complaints about prison treatment do not ordinarily establish unlawful detention where the original detention was lawful; they belong in prison procedures, before the Prison Ombudsman, or in private law. The remaining claim concerning the lawfulness of detention may be transferred to the County Court for determination.

The claimant brought claims for judicial review, habeas corpus, bail, an injunction against removal, and compensation for allegedly unlawful immigration detention. On 28 July 2016, Stuart Smith J granted permission on a restricted basis for claims concerning unlawful detention, damages or compensation, an injunction against removal, immediate release, and the related habeas corpus application.

The claimant was released from detention on 2 November 2016. The court therefore considered which claims remained live, whether complaints about prison treatment were relevant to the lawfulness of detention, and the appropriate forum and procedural directions for the surviving claim.

1. Disposition. The claims for immediate release and habeas corpus became academic on the claimant’s release. The application for an injunction against removal was no longer required, and no permanent injunction could properly be granted because any future removal would depend on the circumstances then existing.
2. Prison-treatment complaints. Complaints about treatment in prison did not themselves make detention unlawful. Applying R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office [1992] 1 AC 58, the judge explained that unlawful detention concerns an unlawful deprivation of liberty. Where detention was initially lawful, ill treatment did not itself constitute an unlawful removal of liberty. The complaints could instead be pursued through the Prison Rules, the Prison Ombudsman, or a private law claim. No arguable case of extreme ill treatment was shown.
3. Surviving issue and transfer. The only remaining issue was whether detention during any or all of three specified periods was unlawful. That issue was transferred to the Central London County Court for hearing and disposal.
4. Further procedure and parties. The claimant could seek specific disclosure after reviewing the bundles, by a fresh application in the County Court. Outstanding applications and claims were dismissed on transfer. The Governor of HMP Wandsworth was discharged as a party, subject to use of evidence already filed and determination of any costs issues by the County Court. Costs between the claimant and the Secretary of State were left to be determined after the unlawful-detention claim.

The judgment was a first-instance decision. It records that on 28 July 2016 Stuart Smith J granted permission on a restricted basis following an oral renewed application. The surviving unlawful-detention claim was transferred to the Central London County Court.