Home Office must provide accommodation to man still detained 15 weeks after bail grant

The Home Secretary has been ordered to provide asylum accommodation to a man with mental health needs who has continued to be held in immigration detention for 15 weeks after he was first granted conditional bail by the First-tier Tribunal. The High Court also granted permission for judicial review on several grounds, including unlawful detention. The case is R (BRO) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2231 (Admin).

Background

The claimant arrived in the UK in a lorry and he claimed asylum when he was encountered in July 2021. He has been diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia with psychotic features and anti-social personality disorder. He has been convicted of various offences in the UK including possession of a knife in a public place, damaging property, assaulting an emergency worker and using threatening words or behaviour.

In October 2024 he was convicted of further offences in Scotland. He had been required to attend court in April 2024 however was unable to afford to travel to Scotland. As a result of his non attendance, a warrant was issued for his arrest and he was taken into custody before then being convicted in October.

He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment in Scotland and the sentence specified that he would be released on conditional licence after the halfway point of his sentence under the supervision of a criminal justice social worker who must also approve his address. In December 2024 the claimant signed a letter withdrawing his asylum claim. At the halfway point of his sentence, on 20 January 2025, the claimant was detained by the Home Secretary under immigration powers with a view to removing him to Nigeria.

On 20 January 2025 the claimant’s solicitors made representations regarding the withdrawal of the asylum claim and said that he had not understood what he was signing. On 22 January 2025 his asylum claim was reinstated however detention was maintained on the basis that removal could take place within a reasonable period of time.

On 6 February 2025 the claimant was transferred to Brook House IRC. Concerns were raised by a GP and other staff at Brook House about the claimant’s mental state. It was determined that the claimant was at level two risk under the Adults at Risk policy and the decision to detain him was maintained and the basis that he could be deported within the next eight to ten weeks.

In March 2025 the claimant was repeatedly placed in segregation because of his behaviour, in particular towards female staff. He was then transferred to Lewes Prison on 2 April 2025 on the basis that the immigration removal centre was unable to adequately manage his behaviour.

On 7 May 2025 the claimant was granted bail by the First-tier Tribunal, conditional on his being provided with accommodation suitable to his mental health needs. On 23 May 2025 the Home Secretary agreed to provide the claimant with asylum accommodation under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

The claimant was not provided with appropriate accommodation and so he remained detained and his conditional grant of bail was renewed by the tribunal several times. At the date of this hearing on 26 August 2025, the claimant had been detained at Lewes Prison for around 15 weeks following the initial grant of conditional bail.

The provision of an address was complicated by the fact that the claimant remained subject to the Scottish sentence which included the requirement that his address be approved by a criminal justice social worker. An address in England would not be acceptable to the social worker unless the local authority or another government agency agreed to provide the necessary supervision.

It was also necessary to ensure that the claimant could receive appropriate mental health care and support including his anti-psychotic medications administered by injections. Under the Mental Health Act, the body responsible for ensuring he receives support he needs to remain out of detention is the integrated care board covering the location where he was first detained under the Act. This is the NHS Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board.

There was also an issue relating to the entitlement to accommodation under the Care Act instead, as the position had been in a state of flux recently.

An address in Glasgow was proposed by the Home Office in early June 2025 but was rejected as unsuitable by the social worker. On 26 June 2025 an address was proposed by the Home Office and approved by the social worker.

However the claimant was not released to the address because on 3 July 2025 a decision was taken to detain him under the Mental Health Act and so the Home Office withdrew the grant of section 95 asylum accommodation on the grounds that the claimant had alternative accommodation. On 14 July 2025 a consultant forensic psychiatrist concluded that the claimant did not meet the criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act. The mental health unit at the prison then asked for that assessment to be reviewed by a medical commissioner.

An assessment on 5 August 2025 concluded that the claimant did not have any specific care or support needs under the Care Act. Despite this, by the time of the hearing on 26 August 2025, the offer of asylum support had not been reinstated by the Home Office. This was because the Home Office said there were two potential alternatives which remained unresolved.

Interim relief and permission for judicial review granted

In addition to considering interim relief the judge also decided permission in the judicial review. Permission was granted to bring a challenge for unlawful detention, for failure to comply with the Detention Centre Rules 2001 and/or the Adults at Risk policy, breach of the Equality Act and unlawful refusal and delay of section 95 accommodation. The claimant was refused permission to add a further ground, that detention was in breach of article 3 of the ECHR.

On the interim relief application, the judge was satisfied that that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the claimant’s ongoing detention is unlawful. The judge said that “There appears to me to be a strong case that the Defendant has not acted with appropriate diligence and expedition, at least after 29 July 2025, to put arrangements in place for releasing the Claimant.”

The judge noted that the delay after it was clear that the claimant would not be detained under the Mental Health Act appeared to be “as a result of the Defendant’s determination to wait for all possible lines of enquiry as to potential alternative sources of accommodation provision for the Claimant to be explored and conclusively resolved before the Defendant would be willing to restore her previous agreement to provide s.95 accommodation for him”. It was considered to be arguable that this was unlawful.

Damages were held not to be an adequate remedy in light of the evidence that ongoing detention was negatively affecting the claimant’s mental health.

When considering the balance of convenience, the court noted that it accepted on behalf of the Home Secretary that the claimant must be released. The court also weighed the fact that there would be a financial cost in the claimant being provided with suitable accommodation, however there would also be a saving on the cost of continuing to detain him.

The court granted interim relief, not for the claimant’s immediate release, but for the Home Secretary to provide an address which is reasonably anticipated to meet the requirements for the claimant’s release on licence in Scotland as well as the grant of immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal. This is to be done by 1 September 2025 with a view to the claimant moving to the accommodation no later than 8 September 2025. 

Conclusion

This is just the latest instalment of a long running reluctance on the part of the Home Office to provide bail accommodation, in particular where the person has additional needs. The Home Office’s increasing desperation to avoid providing asylum accommodation when it is needed seems likely to lead to an increase in unlawful detention payments in situations like this, making it an entirely inefficient way to try to save money.