Sharma, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interim relief in a public-law detention claim is governed by the three-limb American Cyanamid test. The court must consider the serious issue to be tried, the adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. In public-law cases, the public interest in allowing a public authority to enforce the law lawfully may carry considerable weight. The court must also assess the apparent strength of the claim and the consequences of refusing relief.

Under the Hardial Singh principles, immigration detention remains lawful only while removal is sufficiently imminent and detention remains reasonable, with reasonable diligence used to secure removal. Once those conditions cease to exist, only a short period may be allowed to arrange release and suitable conditions.

The claimant, an Indian national detained pending deportation, sought interim release from immigration detention and damages for allegedly unlawful detention. The damages issue was deferred.

The claimant had no current lawful immigration status, had criminal convictions in Scotland, and was subject to licence and notification requirements restricting suitable accommodation. Several removal attempts had failed because the Indian High Commission had not issued emergency travel documentation. The central issue was whether continued detention remained lawful and, if not, what grace period was reasonably required to arrange release.

1. Interim relief. The court applied the three-limb American Cyanamid test. The parties accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried and that damages were not an adequate remedy. The dispute concerned the balance of convenience.
2. Immigration detention. The applicable principles were those in Re Hardial Singh, as restated in R(I) and Lumba: detention must be for the purpose of deportation; it must last no longer than is reasonable; detention must cease when removal cannot be effected within a reasonable period; and the Secretary of State must act with reasonable diligence and expedition.
3. Current detention. The balance of convenience favoured detention at the hearing date. Removal was considered sufficiently imminent because the Indian High Commission had confirmed that an emergency travel document would be issued, relevant staff were expected to return, the anticipated timescale was consistent with earlier approvals, and specific removal dates had been identified. The claimant’s prolonged unlawful presence, repeated non-compliance, criminal convictions and attempt to frustrate removal by swallowing a vape battery reinforced the conclusion that detention remained reasonable.
4. Change in circumstances. If removal did not occur by 3 December 2025, the likelihood of prompt issue of the travel document would materially recede and the claimant’s case that detention had become unlawful would become substantially stronger. This was without prejudice to earlier release if removal ceased to be imminent before that date.
5. Grace period and order. Following the expiry of lawful detention, a short period could be allowed to arrange suitable accommodation and release conditions. The defendant was allowed up to five days to identify suitable accommodation and a further nine days for approvals and release arrangements. Electronic tagging was imposed as a release condition. The claimant was therefore to be released if removal had not occurred by 4 pm on 3 December 2025, subject to that grace period.

Not stated in the judgment.