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

Immigration detention is unlawful where the Secretary of State fails to comply with a policy governing the detention of persons with serious mental illness. The relevant question is whether the condition can be satisfactorily managed in detention, assessed through a practical and fact-sensitive inquiry. Decision-makers must engage with credible evidence of mental illness, make reasonable enquiries, and base continued detention on up-to-date information. They cannot rely solely on the absence of a report declaring the detainee unsuitable for detention. A detention decision may nevertheless be justified for a reasonable period while medical enquiries are made, if the Secretary of State could and would have detained the person had the policy been followed. Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 requires a medical examination within 24 hours of admission unless the detainee refuses consent.

The claimant, a Nigerian overstayer, sought judicial review of his immigration detention between 28 November 2015 and 8 March 2016. By the substantive hearing, the live issues were whether his detention was unlawful because no admission examination was carried out under rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, and whether continued detention breached paragraph 55.10 of the Secretary of State’s Enforcement Instructions and Guidance because his serious mental illness was not satisfactorily managed in detention.

The claimant relied on failures to provide medication and on medical evidence concerning his fitness for detention. The Secretary of State maintained that the legality of detention depended on the decisions to detain and maintain detention, and that any defect would sound only in nominal damages if detention would have occurred in any event.

1. Rule 34. Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 made an examination within 24 hours mandatory unless the detainee withheld consent. The claimant had not refused consent. The failure to examine him made detention at Campsfield unlawful.
2. Applicable approach. Applying R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12, the relevant focus was on whether the decisions to detain or continue detention complied with the Secretary of State’s policy. The Secretary of State bore the burden of establishing lawful justification. A public-law error had to bear on and be relevant to the detention decision. For damages, it was necessary to establish not merely that detention could have been maintained, but that it would have been maintained.
3. Paragraph 55.10. The policy required a practical, fact-sensitive inquiry into whether serious mental illness could be satisfactorily managed in detention. Decision-makers had to consider the detainee’s condition, medication, demonstrated needs, available facilities and the expected period of detention. They had to engage with credible evidence and make reasonable enquiries. Reliance on detention-centre clinicians was permissible only where the Secretary of State had conscientiously investigated the detainee’s condition and considered the policy.
4. The decisions of 14, 16, 21 and 24 December 2015 were unlawful because they maintained detention without engaging with evidence of serious mental illness and relied substantially on the absence of an adverse healthcare report. The 12 January 2016 holding decision was also unlawful, and there was no lawful authority for detention between that decision and 21 January.
5. The 21 January decision could initially support detention because the psychiatrist considered the condition amenable to treatment in the centre. It justified detention only pending the promised further review. An unqualified decision, left unreviewed for nearly a month, failed to comply with the policy. The 19 February decision was unlawful because it was not based on up-to-date facts. Detention became lawful on 26 February while release arrangements were completed.
6. The court declared that the claimant had been unlawfully detained from 30 November 2015 to 25 February 2016. Nominal damages were appropriate for the period in which the Secretary of State could and would have detained him despite compliance with the policy. Substantial damages were awarded in principle for 40 days, with assessment remitted.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The judgment records no appeal or earlier substantive decision in the same claim.