ABDUL MATEEN OMAR ALI v THE HOME OFFICE

An appellate court may determine outstanding issues where the material facts are undisputed, the documentary evidence is available, and the remaining questions are substantially legal. A lawful assessment for the Detained Fast Track requires sufficient enquiries to permit an informed evaluation of whether the asylum claim can be fairly and sustainably decided within the relevant timescales. A material failure to follow the applicable policy may affect the legality of detention. Where no reasonable decision-maker could have assigned the claim to the fast-track process, detention pursuant to that process and its related appeals process is unlawful. Nominal damages are unavailable where the respondent cannot establish that lawful detention would otherwise have occurred.

The appellant appealed against the Central London County Court’s dismissal of his false imprisonment claim concerning immigration detention from 17 December 2014 to 24 March 2015. In the main judgment, the court found errors in the assessment of the suitability of his asylum claim for the Detained Fast Track, the treatment of supporting documentation, and the approach to damages and the effect of the First-tier Tribunal appeal decision.

The present judgment determined consequential issues without remitting them. The parties accepted that the court could determine the case in full. The central questions concerned the adequacy and materiality of the enquiries and policy breaches, the objective suitability of the claim for the fast-track process, the lawfulness of the detention, and whether only nominal damages were recoverable.

1. Outstanding issues and appellate jurisdiction. The court was able to determine the outstanding matters because the key events were undisputed, the documentary evidence was available, and the issues were largely legal. CPR 52.21 permitted the appeal court to draw justified inferences of fact. The respondent bore the burden of justifying the detention and of establishing the alternative nominal-damages case.
2. Fast-track suitability. The decision-maker had not made sufficient enquiries to enable a lawful assessment under the Detained Fast Track Policy. The available material did not explain why the appellant said he was threatened by the Taliban, nor disclose the core basis of his proposed asylum claim. It therefore did not permit an informed assessment of whether a fair and sustainable decision could be reached within the applicable timescales.
3. The breach concerning supporting documentation was material. The decision-maker did not know the nature of the documents, how they supported the claim, or that some required translation. Those matters were capable of affecting the timescale and therefore the suitability of the claim for the fast-track process.
4. No reasonable decision-maker could have concluded, once proper enquiries had been made, that the claim was suitable for the fast-track process. The claim required further investigation into the appellant’s work, alleged recruitment by Afghan intelligence, information supplied about the Taliban, and potentially material documents. It was not a quick-decision case and could not properly be determined within the normal indicative timescales.
5. It followed that the whole period of detention pursuant to the fast-track process and related appeals process was unlawful. The respondent failed to show that the appellant could instead have been lawfully detained outside that process under EIG 55 and the Hardial Singh principles. In particular, detention would have breached the third principle because deportation could not have occurred within a reasonable period.
6. The appellant was entitled to compensatory damages for the whole period of unlawful detention. The court set aside the County Court’s dismissal and costs orders. The appellant was awarded his appeal costs and costs below to date, subject to assessment on the standard basis if not agreed. The parties were given two months to agree quantum; failing agreement, the claim was remitted to the County Court for assessment.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The court’s main judgment, [2022] EWHC 866 (QB), identified errors in the County Court’s dismissal of the false imprisonment claim and left consequential issues for determination.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): In the present judgment, the court determined the outstanding issues, set aside the dismissal and costs orders, and provided for assessment of damages in the County Court if agreement was not reached.