MDA , R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration detention must be justified by the Secretary of State and exercised fairly, reasonably and for the statutory purpose of facilitating removal. Where information available at the time of detention gives rise to a substantial trigger, fairness requires further inquiry into the detainee’s mental capacity. Medical inquiries about fitness to travel do not necessarily satisfy that obligation.

A detention policy concerning serious mental illness requires a practical assessment of whether the illness can be satisfactorily managed in detention and whether exceptional circumstances justify detention. The Adults at Risk guidance must likewise be applied to the current evidence and the likely period of detention. A failure to make the necessary capacity inquiries may also breach the public sector equality duty. The detention was unlawful, although the Article 3, Article 8 and policy challenges otherwise failed.

The claimant, a Somali national with a substantial history of mental illness and offending, was detained under immigration powers from 4 November 2015 until 3 February 2017 pending deportation. He challenged the legality of his initial and continued detention, relying on common law fairness, Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Secretary of State’s detention policies, the Hardial Singh principles, and the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant alleged that the Secretary of State had failed to investigate his mental capacity, had unlawfully applied the policies governing vulnerable detainees, and had failed to comply with equality duties. The central issues were whether the information available when detention was authorised triggered a duty to inquire into capacity, whether continued detention remained reasonably capable of achieving removal, and whether the statutory equality duty had been met.

1. Common law fairness. The court must determine for itself whether administrative detention falls within lawful bounds. The Secretary of State bears responsibility for establishing lawful authority, but the absence of witness evidence did not itself justify an adverse inference. The duty of fairness is contextual and may require inquiry before detention where the circumstances make it necessary.
2. The information available when detention was authorised included a record questioning whether the claimant had mental capacity, together with extensive evidence of serious and recurrent mental health problems. That combination constituted a substantial trigger requiring further inquiry into capacity. The inquiries actually made concerned medical condition and fitness to travel, not capacity. The failure to inquire into capacity breached the common law duty of fairness.
3. Articles 3 and 8. The evidence did not establish, beyond reasonable doubt, treatment reaching the minimum severity required by Article 3. The claimant had access to healthcare, and the evidence did not show denial of hospital treatment which his condition required. The same evidence did not establish a significant adverse effect on mental health sufficient to engage Article 8.
4. Chapter 55.10. The policy required consideration of whether the claimant suffered from serious mental illness which could not be satisfactorily managed in detention and, if so, whether very exceptional circumstances justified detention. The Secretary of State considered the policy and relevant medical information. Her conclusion that the claimant was satisfactorily managed in detention was not Wednesbury irrational.
5. Adults at Risk guidance. The October 2016 review expressly applied the guidance and assessed the claimant as Level 3. The reviewing officers considered the public-protection risk and the presumption in favour of release. The decision disclosed no public law error.
6. Hardial Singh. The detention power was exercised for the prescribed purpose of facilitating deportation. The evidence, considered as a continuous review process rather than by isolated snapshots, did not make it apparent that removal could not be achieved within a reasonable period. Detention while arrangements for release and care were considered remained lawful.
7. Equality Act 2010. The reasonable-adjustment claims were not determined because the nature of the claimant’s condition was disputed and the necessary evidence was not before the court. The Secretary of State nevertheless failed, in the specific circumstances, to make sufficient inquiries to obtain information necessary to comply with the public sector equality duty under section 149. That breach did not materially add to the common law result.
8. The claimant succeeded on Grounds 1 and 8. His detention from 4 November 2015 to 3 February 2017 was unlawful. Further submissions were required on relief and damages, including whether damages should be nominal or substantive.