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

A challenge to immigration detention may be arguable where the detention is prolonged, removal is uncertain, procedural delay is alleged, and the detainee has significant mental-health vulnerabilities. The statutory amendments introduced by the Illegal Migration Act 2023 leave the court with full jurisdiction under Article 5 of the Convention to assess detention independently.

In judicial review proceedings, names of junior civil servants should not be routinely redacted. Redaction requires good and specific reasons, such as evidence of a specific and credible risk to personal safety or national security. Generalised assertions about threat levels or possible harassment are insufficient.

The claimant, an anonymised asylum seeker facing deportation, sought permission to challenge his continuing immigration detention. He relied on the Hardial-Singh principles, Article 5 of the Convention, and the defendant’s Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy. He also sought interim release to a bail address.

The defendant relied on the claimant’s risks of absconding and reoffending. The claimant additionally challenged redactions in the defendant’s disclosure, including the names of junior civil servants working in a Home Office special cases unit. The court had to determine whether permission and interim relief should be granted, and whether the proposed redactions were justified.

1. Permission. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on all three grounds. The claimant’s prolonged detention, documented mental-health vulnerabilities and the procedural history of the immigration appeal made breaches of the second, third and fourth Hardial-Singh principles arguable. Article 5 added little to the domestic ground but was sufficiently arguable. The challenge under the Adults at Risk policy was also arguable, and the statutory no-difference provision was not appropriate to apply at the permission stage.
2. Interim relief. Interim release was refused. There was a strong prima facie case, but the balance of convenience favoured continued detention. The evidence indicated a significant risk of serious harm to the public and persons dealing with the claimant, together with a strong risk of absconding. Prison arrangements provided ongoing management of his mental-health risks. Bail conditions could not adequately mitigate the risks. The substantive hearing was therefore directed to proceed on an expedited basis.
3. Redactions. Redactions of sensitive contact information and third-party personal data were permitted. The application to redact the names of junior civil servants in the Special Cases Unit was refused. Following R (on the application of IAB and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another [2024] EWCA Civ 66, routine redaction of civil servants’ names is inimical to open government and inconsistent with the duty of candour. The defendant had provided only generalised assertions concerning the national threat level, harassment and speculative targeting. No evidence established a real risk to the particular officials concerned. Good and specific reasons would require a specific credible and immediate threat, or equivalent circumstances.
4. The redaction application was allowed in part and otherwise refused.

Not stated in the judgment.