Mr B has accepted a settlement of £10,000 as compensation for his unlawful imprisonment in immigration detention for 12 days.
In 2006 Mr B pleaded guilty to a criminal offence, and in May 2006 the Central Criminal Court granted Mr B conditional bail pending his sentencing. During these proceedings it was confirmed that Mr B was legally resident in the UK, having been granted indefinite leave to remain in August 1989.
Despite the decision of the Central Criminal Court to grant Mr B bail on the basis that they saw no reason to remand him into custody, he was served with a notice placing him on immigration detention as a person liable to deportation and placed in immigration detention.
On hearing of Mr B’s detention, Mr B’s former solicitors immediately contacted the Home Office and the Governor of the prison to request his instant release. After lengthy correspondence, and a court application, Mr B was released from immigration detention after 12 days.
This period of unlawful detention caused great distress to Mr B, who was already in a state of grief, remorse and shock. The fact that Mr B was forced to endure a wholly unnecessary and unlawful period of immigration detention only served to intensify his feelings of anguish and sorrow. In addition, the period of unlawful detention created another layer of anxiety regarding his immigration status and the threat of deportation, despite having been granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK almost 20 years ago.
Claims in unlawful imprisonment
The importance of the availability of an action in false imprisonment has long been recognised. In the case of R v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans [2001] 2 AC 19 the House of Lords stated that:
“It is contrary to principle that the executive should not be liable for illegally interfering with the liberty of the subject. The remedy of habeas corpus and the tort of false imprisonment are important constitutional safeguards of the liberty of the subject against the executive.” (Para 43F)
The Home Office have already acknowledged that the unlawful detention of Mr B was a mistake and made the admission that Mr B was detained “in error”.
The detention of Mr B was also a violation of his Human Rights, most notably Article 5 (right to liberty) and also Article 8 (right to a private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Mr B was eager to avoid further litigation due to his fragile mental state and therefore we sought from the outset of the case, to reach a settlement.
Mr B’s stated on hearing of the successful settlement of his claim for £10,000:
“I am very grateful for the assistance from Leigh Day. I can’t describe how grateful I am. I am very pleased and happy with the outcome.”
Mr B was represented by
Frances Swaine and
Merry Varney of the Human Rights Department. For more information please contact them on 0207 650 1200.
Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details