Small, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE ANDREWS DBE
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimant was detained by the SOS despite being granted bail earlier. Arrest was justified under Paragraph 33 of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 due to new evidence of claimant’s harassment and probable re-offending. The court upheld the SOS's decision stating the re-detention was based on fresh and legitimate reasons.
J U D G M E N T
MRS JUSTICE ANDREWS: This is an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Secretary of State to detain the claimant in immigration detention from 7 August 2014 onwards. The decision to detain the claimant was made against the background that on 1 August 2014, just a week earlier, he had been released on bail from immigration detention by Immigration Judge Peart, subject to certain conditions. The first was a condition that he should report to the authorities, and the first date for reporting was 8 August. That is the day after the decision was made. The second condition was that he should reside and sleep overnight at a house that belonged to his aunt. His aunt stood as surety to his bail, and therefore had obligations to ensure that he adhered to those conditions.
It is fair to say that the claimant does not have the best track record. He is a citizen of Jamaica, born on 2 April 1979, who served with the British army from 2002 to 2010. On 8 May 2013, at a time when he had already overstayed his leave to be in the jurisdiction, he was convicted of a serious assault on his then partner, and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. That sentence brought into play the automatic deportation provisions of section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 . He was placed in immigration detention for the first time under section 36(1) of the 2007 Act on 26 August 2013. A deportation order was made on 9 September 2013. His appeal against that order is still pending.
There is no evidence before this court that the Hardial Singh principles have been breached (in the sense that the initial decision to detain him has not been taken for legitimate reasons of securing his removal). There is nothing to suggest that the Secretary of State does not expect his removal to take place within a reasonable time, or that against the background of his offending history the decision was a disproportionate one. The sole obstacle to his removal was his pending appeal. His detention has been periodically reviewed.
The decision by Immigration Judge Peart to release the claimant on bail was made in the teeth of fierce opposition by the Secretary of State, who pointed to his offender management report, which assessed that he posed a medium risk of reoffending and of causing serious harm. There was a suggestion that he might abscond, and that the address given for him to reside at was not a suitable address: there was said to be insufficient evidence that the aunt liv