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

On an application for interim relief, the court may adjourn the hearing where developments make immediate determination unnecessary and may give proportionate directions to monitor and progress the case. Directions may require the defendant to provide timely updates, subject to the duty of candour in judicial review proceedings. A provisional relisting does not make a further hearing inevitable. Parties should communicate promptly, consider whether further judicial involvement is necessary, and avoid disproportionate costs. A remote telephone hearing is compatible with open justice where the hearing is publicised and reasonable arrangements allow the press and public to observe it.

The claimant sought interim mandatory relief concerning his release from immigration detention. He had been granted bail in principle by the First-tier Tribunal, but the relevant bail order was due to expire and accommodation arrangements remained unresolved.

During the hearing, the defendant informed the court that accommodation had been identified and that release would follow appropriate liaison and checks. The parties therefore used the hearing to agree directions rather than address the merits of the interim application or the underlying judicial review claim.

1. Disposition. The court adjourned the application for interim relief. It did not determine either the merits of the interim application or the substantive judicial review claim.
2. Directions. In light of the identified accommodation and the need for liaison between the National Probation Service and the relevant police force, it was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to require the defendant to update the claimant’s solicitors by 4 pm on 3 August 2020 and the court by noon on 5 August 2020.
3. Further hearing. The provisional listing for 7 August 2020 did not mean that a further hearing would necessarily take place. The parties were expected to maintain clear and prompt communication, assess realistically whether further judicial involvement was required, and take account of the need to avoid unnecessary legal costs and hearing time.
4. Duty of candour. The duty of candour in judicial review proceedings applied to any further update and required appropriate transparency concerning the underlying materials provided to the claimant and the court.
5. Remote hearing and orders. The telephone hearing was suitable and did not prejudice either party. Open justice was secured because the hearing was published in the cause list and arrangements enabled members of the press and public to observe it. The parties were given liberty to apply in writing on notice to vary or discharge the order. Costs were reserved.

The judgment records earlier First-tier Tribunal bail decisions, including bail in principle granted on 22 May 2020 and 15 July 2020. The present court adjourned the interim-relief application and made case-management directions. No appeal was determined.