2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, led by Lady Justice Arden with Lord Justices Underhill and Floyd concurring, addressed whether the Secretary of State lawfully continued to detain O in immigration detention from 24 July 2010 to 6 July 2011 despite a new PTSD diagnosis and medical opinion advocating community care. Dr Roxane Agnew-Davies diagnosed severe PTSD and depressive disorder and recommended long-term specialist community treatment, supported by Professor Katona. UKBA responded that the diagnosis added nothing new and reported Os stable presentation in detention. Os initial bail applications were refused; bail was granted on 6 July 2011 when a comprehensive care package and sureties were available. Applying Hardial Singh and Lumba, the court held risks of absconding and reoffending remained salient and, interpreting EIG 55.10, found satisfactory management does not require equivalence to community care. While criticizing sparse detention reviews, the court concluded detention remained lawful and dismissed the appeal; Underhill and Floyd agreed.
Judgment
Lady Justice Arden :
Issue for this appeal
This issue on this appeal is whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the Secretary of State”) could continue lawfully to hold the appellant, O, in immigration detention from 24 July 2010 to 6 July 2011 notwithstanding a change in the diagnosis of her mental illness and medical opinion that she should be cared for in the community. This issue arises because O has sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to detain her, in order to seek damages for unlawful detention for the period following that diagnosis. By her order dated 3 April 2012, Lang J refused her permission to apply for judicial review. I shall take the events in chronological order below but, as explained, this court has already considered the lawfulness of O’s detention prior to 24 July 2010 and so that period of detention will not be further considered in this judgment.
The judge, in a short judgment, held that what she had to decide was:
“…whether the circumstances had changed such that the detention had become arguably unlawful under either Hardial Singh principles, as submitted, or because of an arguable failure on the part of the Secretary State properly to apply her policy on the mentally ill.” (judgment, [26])
O had entered the UK illegally with her son, S, and unsuccessfully claimed asylum. O contends that she arrived in the UK in November 2003. She suffered from mental illness. O committed offences of child cruelty against S, who subsequently returned to Nigeria. She was given bail but absconded. She then had a daughter, M, and committed a further offence. She pleaded guilty to offences of child cruelty on 12 July 2008 and was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment with a recommendation that she should be deported at the end of the term. While she was in prison and during her detention she demonstrated the effects of her psychotic illness by self-harm.
On her release from prison on 8 August 2008, the Secretary of State decided that she should be deported. At the same time she decided to detain O and she was sent to a detention centre known as Yarl’s Wood. That means that she was detained for a period of nearly three years, which is worryingly long. A deportation order was not made at this time because of concerns about O’s mental health and because there were ongoing care proceedings about M.
In proceedings brought by O against the Secretary of State, prior to these