Ganesharajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- BOBBIE CHEEMA QC
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Human Rights Law
- Tort Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Claimant, detained by the Defendant from July 2008 to February 2013 after serving a criminal sentence, sought damages for unlawful immigration detention. His prolonged detention was legally challenged under Hardial Singh principles, which require detentions to be reasonable, diligent, and for the purpose of deportation. Despite the Defendant's attempts to deport him, the Claimant provided conflicting information on his nationality. The court awarded substantial and nominal damages for periods of unlawful detention, finding the Defendant acted reasonably and diligently throughout most of the detention.
Judgment
Bobbie Cheema QC :
INTRODUCTION
This is a claim in tort for damages for false imprisonment namely, unlawful immigration detention. The Claimant was detained by the Defendant after completing a criminal sentence from 10 th July 2008 until 28 th February 2013 when he was removed to Sri Lanka, a period of four years and seven months. This length of detention while not unique is plainly exceptional. The Defendant has no unfettered power of detention. The Claimant asserts that this detention was unlawful throughout. The Defendant (“SSHD”) contends that apart from the first two months, at all material times the Claimant was lawfully detained.
THE FACTS
The Claimant relies on the absence of evidence from any official involved in his detention. The evidence called by the Defendant has been limited to a narrative upon documentary records from one of her caseworkers and an over-view from a team leader in Criminal Casework although the caseworker, Mr Eugene Pereira had responsibility for the Claimants’ case for a short while towards the end of his detention and completed detention reviews for that time. During pre-trial preparatory stages there were a number of inaccuracies in factual assertions made on behalf of the Defendant whose case remained littered with late admissions and concessions at trial. However, I am satisfied that despite the inevitable assistance I would have received from hearing evidence from the case-worker who had conduct of the Claimant’s case for most of his detention and who has since left the employment of the Defendant, there is no injustice to the Claimant from the Defendant’s failure to call him. Accordingly, I decline to draw any adverse inference from the caseworker’s absence. The Claimant’s solicitor has provided by way of statement an alternative interpretation of some of the documentary records and process which has not ultimately been objected to by the Defendant and which I have found very helpful. No evidence was called from the Claimant who has been removed and is apparently unable to reach a video conference facility in Sri Lanka. The following summary of the relevant facts is taken from the agreed chronology reached by the parties by the end of the evidence.
The Claimant arrived in the United Kingdom on 12 th October 1991. He claimed asylum as a Sri Lankan and was granted temporary admission after being interviewed with a Tamil interpreter. The asylum claim was refused on 27 th February 1993 but he was granted lea