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

The lawfulness of immigration detention depends on the circumstances as a whole. No fixed maximum period applies. Detention remains permissible where removal remains realistically achievable, the statutory purpose justifies detention, and the detainee presents substantial risks of absconding or reoffending.

Administrative delay does not itself make detention unlawful. A claimant must establish unreasonableness amounting to illegality and identify a specific period during which, but for the failure, detention would have ended earlier.

The claimant, a refugee with a serious criminal record, challenged his immigration detention between August 2013 and April 2015. He argued that the Secretary of State had exceeded a reasonable detention period, that removal had ceased to be realistically achievable, and that she had failed to act with reasonable diligence and expedition.

The claim required application of the Hardial Singh principles to the changing issues concerning the claimant’s refugee status, deportation and removal to Somalia or Somaliland.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant’s detention remained within a reasonable period in the circumstances. The statutory purpose was removal, and detention was justified by the substantial risks that he would abscond or reoffend. The complexity of resolving his refugee status, deportation position and removability did not prevent detention from remaining lawful.
2. No fixed finite period could be specified. Following the approach in R (Muqtaar) v SSHD [2013] 1 WLR 649 (CA), the reasonable period had to be assessed in context. When the claimant was granted bail, that period had not expired.
3. There had been a realistic prospect of deportation within a reasonable period. The evidence did not show that removal had become impossible or that an obvious point had been reached when continued detention was unjustified.
4. The Secretary of State had acted with reasonable diligence and due expedition. Adopting the approach in R (Krasniqi) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 1549, mere administrative failure or delay was insufficient. The claimant had to show unreasonableness amounting to illegality and a specific period during which detention would otherwise have ended. He established neither.
5. The application for a declaration was refused and the judicial review claim was dismissed.