Logo

Call | Free Advice | Email | Appointments

Compensation Claim For Unlawful Immigration Detention

Details

You can make a claim for compensation / damages against the Home Office UKVI if you have been subjected to unlawful immigration detention in the UK during last 6 years. The unlawful immigration detention is an act of the Home Office UKVI to detain a person where the detention of such person cannot be legally justified and is outside the boundaries of law. The law attaches supreme importance to the liberty of individuals and a person who believes that they have experienced unlawful immigration detention may be entitled to claim compensation.

Unlawfully detained by the Home Office UKVI at any time during last 6 years? Our compensation lawyers can help you with your compensation claim on no win no fee basis.

What Is The Unlawful Immigration Detention?

The unlawful immigration detention is an act of the Home Office UKVI to detain a person where the detention of such person cannot be legally justified and is outside the boundaries of law. The law attaches supreme importance to the liberty of individuals and a person who believes that they have experienced unlawful immigration detention may be entitled to claim compensation.

Your immigration detention may be found to be unlawful by a court in the following circumstances:

  • If you have valid leave to remain in the UK at the time of your immigration detention and the Home Office UKVI has erroneously treated you as an overstayer and a person with no leave to remain;
  • If you have Section 3C leave by virtue of a pending application or appeal and the Home Office UKVI wrongfully considered you as a person with no leave to remain at the time of your immigration detention;
  • If you are exempt from immigration control being an EU national or a family member of an EU national and the Home Office UKVI treated you under the domestic law and  not exempt from the immigration control at the time of your detention;
  • If Home Office UKVI detained you as a result of an unlawful immigration decision by the Home Office UKVI on your immigration application for leave to remain which was later set aside by the immigration court or the Home Office UKVI conceded the decision to be unlawful during the litigation;
  • If you were detained by the Home Office UKVI when your removal from the UK was not imminent and you were not evading immigration control;
  • If you are an un unaccompanied minor at the time of your immigration detention. An unaccompanied minor must either be under 18 or yet to have their age verified by an age assessment;
  • If you have a severe disability at the time of your immigration detention;
  • If you have an infectious or contagious disease at the tim of your immigration detention;
  • If you are a woman who is 24 or more weeks pregnant at thet ime of your immigration detention;
  • If you suffer from a mental illness at the time of your immigration detention;
  • If you require constant medical care and you have been detained by the Home Office UKVI;
  • If you are a victim of torture or trafficking and you ahve evidence to prove the same.

The list above is not comprehensive and exhaustive and there may be other circumstances in which detention of an immigrant may be held unlawful by the court and damages for unlawful detention may be awarded by the court.

Free Initial Assessment

We offer a free consultation to initially assess the circumstances of your detention and the merits of your claim. Should we consider that your claim has good prospect of success, i.e. 51% or more, we will accept instructions to legally represent you in your compensation claim. We will enter into a no win no fee agreement with you in relation to our legal services.

No Win No Fee For Unlawful Immigration Detention Claim

Our expert team of compensation solicitors can legally represent you in your unlawful immigration detention claim against the Home Office UKVI. We can act on no win no fee basis in your damages claim against the Home Office UKVI for your unlawful immigration detention and will charge up to 25% of the compensation amount recovered from the Home Office UKVI as success fee in your case.

Time Limit For Compensation Claim

  • The limitation period for a claim for Unlawful Detention only is 6 years from the date of detention; therefore you would need to consider issuing Court proceedings before the end of the six year period.
  • Any claims based on a breach of human rights (e.g. torture) are limited to 1 year from the date of the act/detention.
  • If you also suffered from any physical/psychological injury due to your detention, claims for personal injury have a limitation period of 3 years from the date of injury.

Our compensation lawyers will consider all aspects of your immigration detention, including any injuries you have incurred, when considering the value of your claim, any potential settlement with the Home Office, UKVI and any deadlines to issue Court Proceedings.

Legal Principles On Unlawful Immigration Detention?

In a claim for unlawful immigration detention it is for the Claimant to prove that he was detained by the Home Office, UKVI within last 6 years. Once detention is established by the claimant, it is for the Home Office, UKVI (the Defendant) to show that it was lawful in all the circumstances in which detention of the claimant took place.

The common law limits the Secretary of State’s exercise of powers of detention. Those limits were set out by Woolf J (as he then was) in R v Durham Prison Governor ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 (“the four Hardial Singh principles”):

“First of all, it [the 1971 Act] can only authorise detention if the individual is being detained in one case pending the making of a deportation order, in the other, pending his removal. It cannot be used for any other purpose. Secondly, as the power is given  in order to enable the machinery of the deportation to be carried out, I regard the power of detention as being impliedly limited to a period which is reasonably necessary for that purpose. What is more, if there is a situation where it is apparent to the Secretary of State that he is not going to be able to operate the machinery provided in the Act for removing persons who are intended to be deported within a reasonable period, it seems to be that it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to seek to exercise its powers of detention.”

The Hardial Singh principles were unanimously endorsed in the landmark judgment of R (Walumba Lumba and Kadian Mighty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12, which reiterated at paragraph [22] the correctness of R (on the application of I) v Secretary of State [2002] EWCA Civ 888, in which Dyson LJ said at  paragraph [46]:

“(i) The SSHD must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose;
(ii) The deportee may only be detained for the period that is reasonable in all the circumstances;
(iii) If, before the expiry of a reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the SSHD will not be able to effect deportation within that reasonable period, [s]he should not seek to exercise the power of detention;
(iv) The Secretary of State should act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal.”

Dyson LJ continued at paragraph [48] of I:

“It is not possible or desirable to produce an exhaustive list of all circumstances that are or may be relevant to the question of how long it is reasonable for the Secretary
of State to detain a person pending deportation pursuant to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. But in my view they include at least:

  • the length of the period of detention;
  • the nature of the obstacles which stand in the path of the Secretary of State preventing a deportation;
  • the diligence, speed and effectiveness of the steps taken by Secretary of State to surmount such obstacles;
  • the conditions in which the detained person is being kept;
  • the effect of detention on him and his family;
  • the risk that if he is released from detention he will abscond; and
  • the danger that, if released, he will commit criminal offences.”

The four Hardial Singh principles were neatly summarised by Michael Fordham QC (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) in R(Muhammad) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 745 (Admin) as:

  1. the purpose principle;
  2. the duration principle;
  3. the removability principle; and
  4. the diligence principle.

Premium Solicitors is the trading name of Premium Solicitors Ltd (company registration number 14268786). Premium Solicitors Office is regulated by SRA under SRA ID 8001468. Premium Solicitors are also members of Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA).

Copyright © 2022 Premium Solicitors, All rights reserved