Mohammed, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR. STEPHEN MORRIS QC
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Administrative Law
- Human Rights Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court reviewed the detention of Shahpoor Mohammed, an Afghanistani national. Detained for 17 days under the belief he could be removed to Italy, a later judgment showed this was unlawful. The court found the Secretary of State’s misunderstanding of the law did not constitute reasonable grounds for detention and declared the detention unlawful. The court also reviewed Hardial Singh principles but found the Secretary of State acted within a reasonable timeframe for removal considerations.
Judgment
Mr Stephen Morris QC:
Introduction
The Claimant, Shahpoor Mohammed ("the Claimant") is an Afghanistani national, aged 23. By this claim for judicial review, he now seeks a declaration that his detention for 17 days between 24 August 2009 and 10 September 2009 by the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("the Secretary of State") pursuant to the Immigration Act 1971 (" the 1971 Act ") was unlawful and damages for false imprisonment. In the event of a finding that the detention was unlawful, the parties have agreed that the issue of quantum of damages should be adjourned in order that they may explore settlement.
The Claimant seeks to raise two grounds to establish the unlawful nature of his detention. The first, and main ground (“Ground 1”), turns on a deceptively short question of law; namely whether the Secretary of State had “reasonable grounds for suspecting”, within the meaning of paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act , that the Claimant could lawfully be removed to Italy under Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 (“the Dublin II Regulation”), in circumstances where, at the time of his detention, it was genuinely and reasonably believed that, as a matter of law, he could be so removed but where it is now known, following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (“CJEU”), that, as a matter of law, he could not have been lawfully so removed. In short, can an erroneous view of the law (as opposed to an erroneous view of the facts) amount to “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that a person is liable to removal? The second ground of challenge (“Ground 2”) is that, on the basis of Hardial Singh principles, the Claimant could not be removed within a reasonable time and he should never have been detained or he should have been released on 25 August 2009, alternatively 1 or 2 September 2009, after which date, his detention was unlawful.
Mr Omar Shibli of counsel appeared for the Claimant and Ms Gemma White of counsel appeared for the Secretary of State.
The facts in summary
The Claimant entered the UK on 22 October 2008 and on that date, applied for asylum. He was was assessed as being 17 years old at that time and was thus an unaccompanied minor within the meaning of the Dublin II Regulation.
On 22 April 2009 the Secretary of State made a request to Italy to accept responsibility for the Claimant's asylum claim, relying upon the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation. The Secretary of State believes that th