Mamun Ahmed v Secretary of State for The Home Department

Procedural fairness in an immigration enforcement interview is context-specific. Where questioning may lead to curtailment of leave and detention, fairness may require safeguards proportionate to the seriousness of the jeopardy, including a suitable setting and a real opportunity to understand the position and request legal or other assistance. There is no automatic obligation to suggest legal advice. However, significant questioning in a noisy and public setting, without adequate attention to language comprehension and communication, may render the process unfair. Fairness is assessed objectively by reference to the circumstances existing when the decision was made. Relief should not be refused merely because the same outcome might have followed if the disputed account had been investigated fairly.

The claimant, a Bangladeshi national, held skilled worker leave sponsored by a care provider. Immigration Enforcement officers questioned him at Birmingham New Street Station shortly after his expected employment start date. They recorded admissions that he had not started the sponsored employment and had worked in his uncle’s takeaway. His leave was curtailed and he was detained.

He sought judicial review of the curtailment and detention decisions. The principal issue was whether the interview process was procedurally fair, given the public location, disputed interview records, the claimant’s use of English, the absence of the interviewing officer’s evidence and the seriousness of the possible consequences.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded on Ground 1, concerning procedural fairness, and consequently on Ground 3, concerning detention. The decision to curtail the claimant’s leave was quashed. The form of relief was left for agreement or further judicial ruling.
2. Applicable approach. Procedural fairness is an objective question determined retrospectively by reference to the full factual and statutory context. The three first-instance authorities relied upon were fact-specific and did not directly determine the result, although their general principles were important.
3. Fairness in the present context. There was no automatic requirement to suggest or advise legal assistance. However, once the officers had decided that the initial exchange justified arrest and that further questioning was required, they should have paused and considered safeguards. The claimant faced potentially life-changing consequences, including curtailment and detention. The second interview was conducted in a busy public station, without evidence of steps to reduce noise, preserve dignity, or facilitate concentration and communication in a second language. That created procedural unfairness.
4. Opportunity to understand and obtain assistance. In the specific circumstances, fairness required sufficient understanding of the gravity of the situation and an opportunity to reflect on and communicate whether the claimant wished someone to be informed or to request legal advice or a responsible person. Those safeguards were absent.
5. Relief. The court rejected the submission under s 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. It was not highly likely that the same decision would have been reached without the procedural unfairness, since investigation of the claimant’s account, particularly with the sponsor, might have led to a different exercise of discretion.
6. Scope. The judgment was confined to the particular circumstances. Routine, non-intelligence-led enforcement operations in public places were not intrinsically unlawful or unfair, but their procedures could still be unfair in an individual case.