Ibukun Adebowale Adegboyega v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Unlawful detention damages are assessed globally and fact-sensitively. Comparable awards are illustrative, not a rigid daily-rate framework, and tapering may have less force where distress and oppressive conditions persist. Aggravated damages compensate additional humiliation or injury to dignity. Exemplary damages may be awarded for outrageous, arbitrary or unconstitutional executive conduct where punishment, deterrence and vindication of the law require it. Article 3 ECHR is assessed objectively by reference to the cumulative effect and overall context of detention conditions. Separate heads of damages must be scrutinised to avoid double recovery.

The claimant, a Nigerian national and spouse of an EEA national, claimed damages arising from unlawful detention at Brook House for 88 days, trespass to the person, breaches of Articles 3 and 8 ECHR, psychiatric injury, and breaches of Directive 2004/38/EC and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

Liability for unlawful detention and breach of EEA law had been conceded. The trial concerned quantum and the remaining issues, including the admissibility and weight of the Brook House Inquiry report, the Article 3 threshold, exemplary and aggravated damages, psychiatric injury, and loss of earnings.

1. Outcome. The court awarded £203,995.24 in total damages, less £57,500 in interim payments, leaving £146,495.24. The awards included £35,000 basic, £15,000 aggravated and £25,000 exemplary damages for unlawful detention; £250 for trespass; £26,000 for breach of Article 3; £25,000 for PTSD; £4,000 for CBT; £38,955 loss of earnings; and £30,000 exemplary damages for breach of EEA rights. No separate Article 8 or aggravated EEA-rights award was made.
2. Applying Thompson, MK (Algeria), AXD and R (Diop), comparable awards were illustrative and a mechanical daily-rate approach was rejected. Tapering had reduced force because the oppressive conditions, threat of removal and psychological distress continued throughout detention (paras [118]-[122]).
3. The defendant’s conduct justified aggravated damages. It was high-handed and oppressive, including detention despite evidence of an EEA-derived right of residence, failure properly to address representations, misleading bail submissions and resistance to substantial damages. Double counting was avoided by excluding injury compensated under other heads (paras [129]-[134]).
4. Applying Rookes v Barnard and Muuse, the court found an outrageous and arbitrary exercise of executive power. Exemplary damages were necessary to punish, deter and vindicate the strength of the law (paras [135]-[142], [261]-[289]).
5. Article 3 required an objective assessment of minimum severity, considering all circumstances, the cumulative effects of conditions and the overall context. Prison-like and degrading conditions, excessive lock-in, lack of toilet privacy and ventilation, poor sanitation, drug-related danger, abusive language and systemic failures crossed the threshold (paras [169]-[194]).
6. The claimant established moderate PTSD caused by detention. The court preferred Professor Elliott’s evidence and awarded £25,000, together with £4,000 for 16 CBT sessions (paras [222]-[250]).
7. The defendant breached the claimant’s EEA rights by refusing to recognise his derived residence and work rights, failing to issue a residence card and appeal rights, and imposing unlawful reporting and removal measures. Loss of earnings was agreed at £38,955. Exemplary damages of £30,000 were awarded, but no aggravated damages were added because the relevant matters had already been reflected in other awards (paras [266]-[293]).
8. Article 8 was engaged and infringed, but no additional award was made because the relevant harm had already been compensated (paras [294]-[299]).

First-instance assessment of damages following earlier concessions and orders in the same proceedings. The defendant conceded liability in principle for unlawful detention and breach of EEA law, and the claim was transferred for assessment of quantum. No appellate decision is stated.