Ahmed Sabbagh-Parry, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office & Anor

A judicial review claim challenging ongoing deportation proceedings is premature where no final deportation decision has been made and an alternative statutory appeal will be available. In the absence of an arguable public law challenge to those proceedings, consequential challenges to prisoner categorisation and home detention curfew decisions cannot succeed where those decisions were based on the existing deportation proceedings. An extension of time will serve no purpose where the proposed grounds have no arguable merit. Interim relief requires a serious issue to be tried.

The claimant, a serving prisoner, challenged the first defendant’s decision to commence deportation proceedings and the second defendant’s refusals to grant Category D status and home detention curfew. He sought an extension of time for the out-of-time claims, permission to apply for judicial review, and interim injunctive relief.

The deportation process had reached the Stage 1 notice but no Stage 2 decision or final deportation order had been made. The court therefore considered whether the claims were premature, whether any grounds had an arguable prospect of success, and whether interim relief was justified.

1. Extension of time. Under CPR r 54.5(1), a judicial review claim must be filed promptly and, in any event, within three months after the grounds first arose. The court would have been likely to extend time where procedural confusion between the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal was not the claimant’s fault. However, an extension was refused because none of the proposed grounds had arguable merit.
2. Deportation proceedings. The challenge to the first defendant was premature. No final deportation decision had been made, and the claimant would have an alternative substantive appeal against the Stage 2 decision and any deportation order. The claimant had not pleaded unlawful delay as a public law ground, and any proposed amendment alleging unlawful delay would have had no reasonable prospect of success.
3. Category D and HDC decisions. Since there was no viable public law challenge to the deportation proceedings, there was no basis for challenging the second defendant’s decisions. The second defendant was entitled to rely on the existence of the current deportation proceedings under the applicable statutory and policy frameworks. The claimant identified no weighty exceptional circumstances requiring a different result.
4. Interim relief and costs. There was no serious issue to be tried, so interim relief was refused. The defendants’ costs were found reasonable and proportionate and were summarily assessed at £3,993 and £5,385.50 respectively.