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

Immigration detention pending deportation must remain justified throughout the detention period. The Secretary of State must act with reasonable diligence and expedition, and must release the detainee when it becomes apparent that removal cannot be effected within a reasonable period. Risk of absconding, non-compliance and reoffending are relevant factors, but none is a trump card justifying indefinite detention. A period of unexplained inactivity in arranging nationality interviews breached the Hardial Singh principles. The court also confirmed that a detainee is ordinarily entitled to the gist of information obtained from contacts, subject to necessary redactions, although the disclosure issue was academic on the facts.

The claimant, an Iranian or Iraqi Kurdish national, had been detained under immigration powers after completing the custodial part of a sentence for attempted rape. The Secretary of State sought an emergency travel document and later changed the working nationality assessment from Iranian to Iraqi. The claimant challenged that change, the continuation of detention, non-disclosure of telephone evidence, and delay in dealing with applications for accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

The central issues were whether the nationality assessment was a reviewable decision and whether continued detention complied with the Hardial Singh principles.

1. Nationality assessment. The change from an Iranian to an Iraqi working hypothesis formed part of a continuous and circumspect assessment process. It was not a concluded decision amenable to judicial review. Alternatively, if it were a reviewable decision, it lacked sufficient reasons and would have been irrational on the evidence then available. Limited Farsi ability, equivocal telephone evidence and credibility concerns justified a two-pronged investigation, not a firm exclusion of Iranian nationality. The prior tribunal material did not bind the Secretary of State on the facts of this case, applying the exceptions discussed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Danaei [1998] INLR 124.
2. Hardial Singh principle (iv). The Secretary of State had to act with reasonable diligence and expedition. Nationality interviews for Iran and Iraq should have been arranged by January 2016. After the Iranian interview, the Iraqi interview was cancelled and never rearranged, with no adequate evidence explaining the inactivity. That went beyond administrative failing and was unlawful. The court declared 11 months of detention, from January to December 2016, unlawful.
3. Principles (ii) and (iii). The reasonable period is fact-sensitive and requires continuous assessment. Compliance, absconding risk and reoffending risk are relevant, but do not justify indefinite detention. The claimant presented a real and serious absconding risk and a medium risk of reoffending, but those matters did not outweigh the absence of progress. The reasonable period would broadly have expired by July 2016, and by the end of January 2016 it should have been apparent that removal could not be achieved within it. Detention was therefore also unlawful under principles (ii) and (iii.
4. Disclosure and accommodation. The claimant was entitled to the gist of the telephone evidence, not merely confirmation that calls had occurred. The disclosure ground was academic and no relief was granted. Delay in dealing with the final section 4 application and in arranging accommodation after bail was approved in principle was criticised, but the ground was also academic. Damages, if not agreed, were to be assessed in the Queen’s Bench Division.

The judgment describes earlier asylum and deportation proceedings before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and the First-tier Tribunal. This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court; no appeal decision is stated.