AYZ v The Home Office

The Hardial Singh limitations govern the exercise of immigration detention powers. They do not directly regulate conduct before detention, although earlier events may remain relevant to the reasonableness of detention and to diligence in effecting removal. The fourth principle requires more than administrative delay: the claimant must establish unreasonableness amounting to illegality and a period of detention caused by that failure. The court must assess each detention decision objectively by reference to information available at the time. Risk of absconding, reoffending and serious harm may materially extend the reasonable detention period. A single detention authorisation may continue despite a change in the statutory source of the detention power unless its terms impose a limitation.

AYZ, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, claimed damages for false imprisonment arising from immigration detention between 9 July 2013 and 1 October 2015. He had served a custodial sentence and was subject to deportation proceedings. His refugee status was later treated as requiring cessation consideration, a fresh deportation order was made, and his appeal proceedings caused further delay.

He alleged breaches of the second, third and fourth Hardial Singh principles, including delay before detention, insufficient prospect of removal within a reasonable period, and the absence of lawful authority after 2 June 2014 when the deportation order was re-made. The central issues were whether the detention was lawful throughout and whether the IS91 authorisation remained effective after the statutory basis of detention changed.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court held that AYZ was not unlawfully detained between 9 July 2013 and 1 October 2015, that the Hardial Singh principles were not breached, and that the IS91 dated 30 August 2013 continued to authorise detention after 2 June 2014.
2. The Hardial Singh limitations apply to a decision to detain or continue detention. They do not impose a freestanding obligation governing conduct before detention or a separate decision to make a deportation order. Earlier events may nevertheless be relevant when assessing the overall reasonableness of detention or HS4 diligence.
3. HS4 requires reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal. A process taking longer than it ideally should is insufficient. The claimant must show unreasonableness amounting to illegality and identify a period during which the failure caused continued detention.
4. The detention decisions required an objective, time-specific assessment based on the material available when each decision was made. The relevant factors included the length of detention, obstacles to removal, governmental diligence, detention conditions, personal impact, risk of absconding and danger of reoffending. AYZ’s high risks of absconding and serious harm, very high risk of reoffending, criminal history and gang-related violence justified a detention period of up to 12 months in the circumstances then assessed. Later events could not retrospectively invalidate earlier decisions.
5. The IS91 was an express authority to detain and contained no wording limiting detention to the period before a decision under section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007. It could authorise continuous detention while the statutory source changed to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. Even if a fresh IS91 had been required, the Secretary of State could and would have issued one, so no loss beyond nominal damages was established.