Emergency travel document delays lead to detention challenge

The High Court has declined to order the release of a man in a case where there have been delays in his emergency travel document being issued so that he could be deported. The court did, however, order that bail be granted if the latest attempted deportation also failed for lack of an emergency travel document. The case is R (Sharma) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3165 (Admin).

The claimant came to the UK in 2009 as a student. He overstayed after his leave expired in 2010. Several years later he was detained and he then made several unsuccessful applications to remain in the UK. He was convicted for various offences in Scotland including sexual activity with a child and supply of Class B drugs, and he was sentenced to 36 months in prison.

An attempt was made to deport him on 23 June 2025 however the High Commission of India failed to issue him with an emergency travel document by this date. The reason was given was that it was because of “Mr Sharma’s custodial sentence and multiple names”. No further explanation was provided to the court.

A second deportation attempt on 23 September 2025 was cancelled after the claimant swallowed a vape battery and had to be taken to hospital. The High Commission of India had also still not issued the emergency travel document.

On 30 September 2025 the commission confirmed that it had approved the emergency travel document for issue and deportation was set for 6 November 2025. A grant of conditional bail that had been made was cancelled as a result.

The emergency travel document had still not been issued by that date as the person responsible for issuing it was away and due to return on 10 November 2025. A new provisional deportation date was set for 2 December 2025, with the possibility of bringing this forward to 27 November 2025.

The court declined to order the release of the claimant, saying that the Home Secretary had “by far” the stronger argument and said:

This is due to the likely imminence of removal:

a) the IHC has now confirmed that it will issue an ETD

b) the IHC has explained that the person who will issue it is back from leave on 10 November

c) the internal documents of the defendant refer to an IHC taking some 60-90 days or 1-2 months, and those periods are consistent with an ETD approved in June or September being issued in the imminent future;

d) there are specific dates within the next three weeks when removal can be effected

The court also considered additional factors to be relevant, including the claimant’s immigration and criminal history, the risk of non-compliance with bail, risk to the public, and the self-harm incident with the vape battery, which the court said would be easier to prevent if he was detained.

However the court said that if the emergency travel document had still not been issued and as a result the claimant was not deported on 2 December 2025 then that would affect the position. This was because the prospect of his being removed imminently would have receded. The court ordered that if deportation had not been effected by 4pm on 3 December, then the claimant was to be released on bail.