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

For interim mandatory relief in a public-law claim, the claimant must ordinarily show a strong prima facie case. Where the interim order would effectively grant the substance of the final relief, the threshold is a particularly strong case, described as a very strong prima facie case or a high level of confidence in ultimate success.

Once that threshold is met, the court assesses the balance of convenience by considering the circumstances cumulatively. Exceptional features may justify relief even where immigration control and the claimant’s adverse history weigh heavily against it. An assurance by the Government offering a safe third-country transfer, supported by continuing responsibility and liberty to apply, may provide a sufficient basis for resolving the interim application.

The claimant, a Sri Lankan national with a history of torture, sexual abuse, serious mental-health difficulties and criminal convictions, had remained on Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory since 2021. He sought urgent interim mandatory relief requiring the Secretary of State to permit him to board a charter flight and enter the United Kingdom.

The application arose after the Commissioner decided that non-essential personnel should be withdrawn because of heightened security risks. The claimant was the only migrant remaining on the island and depended on civilian support which was also being withdrawn. During the hearing, the Government offered to transfer him to the Maldives for 30 days, with medical support and an assurance against return to Sri Lanka. The issues were whether the claim met the particularly strong threshold for interim relief and how the Maldives proposal affected the appropriate order.

1. Threshold for relief. Because the application sought a mandatory injunction, the claimant had to show a strong prima facie case. Since relief could substantially provide the final remedy, the applicable threshold was that the case be particularly strong: a more stringent test involving a very strong prima facie case or a high level of confidence in ultimate success.
2. Absent the changed security circumstances and withdrawal of civilian support, the claim would not have met that threshold. The claimant’s improved mental health reduced the likelihood of success at trial, while the continuing search for a third country made United Kingdom admission more arguable. The earlier decision in KP (1) was not determinative at the threshold stage because it incorporated balance-of-convenience considerations.
3. The security situation materially altered the assessment. The claimant had no means of leaving Diego Garcia, depended on support which was being withdrawn, and faced an unsafe military environment. The absence of a coherent plan and the paucity of evidence explaining the Secretary of State’s decision strongly supported the rationality challenge. Taken together, these unusual circumstances made the case particularly strong.
4. The balance of convenience also favoured relief. Relevant considerations included the claimant’s isolation, security risks, mental and physical wellbeing, loss of support, criminal convictions, absence of any legal right to enter the United Kingdom, and the exceptional and unlikely-to-be-repeated nature of the circumstances.
5. The Maldives proposal provided a practicable resolution. The court identified no legal obstacle to transfer there. The Government’s assurance, continuing responsibility for the claimant, undertaking not to return him to Sri Lanka, and liberty to apply sufficiently protected him. The order was therefore framed to facilitate departure on the charter flight and transfer to the Maldives for 30 days.