Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Presumption to detain declared unlawful


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

News just in: the Home Office’s secret policy of a presumption of detention in almost all deportation cases was this afternoon declared unlawful [judgment now available]. The current version of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, which incorporates the policy, was also declared unlawful.

Mr Justice Davis holds that the policy was not quite a blanket policy to detain all those facing deportation, but goes on to find that it was not lawful anyway. Firstly, it offends against the principles surrounding the power to detain. The statute that grants the Secretary of State the power to detain creates a presumption of liberty. Secondly, the policy was not sufficiently published or accessible. Indeed, it ran contrary to the policy that was published, at least until September 2008.

The applications for compensation for unlawful detention are then refused on the basis that even without the presumption in favour of detention these claimants would have been detained anyway: there was no causation and therefore no entitlement to damages. However, he does hold that, given the background to the cases, it is for the Secretary of State to show that detention was lawful, whereas normally it would be for the claimant to show that detention was unlawful; he shifts the burden of proof, basically.

Human rights don’t get a mention, interestingly.

The judge identifies some possible reasons to explain the failings at the Home Office: not wanting to be bearers of bad tidings to Ministers, an instinct for ducking apparently intractable problems or institutional inertia. He wisely refuses to take his pick, though. None of them exactly reflect well on the responsible civil servants or leadership at the Home Office.

Both sides wanted to appeal but permission was refused. Nevertheless, given the significance of the issues at stake it is likely to reach the Court of Appeal and quite possibly the Lords.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Free Movement

Free Movement

The Free Movement blog was founded in 2007 by Colin Yeo, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers specialising in immigration law. The blog provides updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law by a variety of authors.


One Response

  1. i am one of those who are being detained unlawfully at dungavel IRC. i am a failed asylum seeker from Zimbabwe,and was detained after being convicted for use of false instruments to obtain employment and was sentenced for six months. there is no basis for detaining Zimbabweans as thre is no prospects of deporting us back to our country in the foreseable future. i have been in detention for two months and one week.

    i think we have a strong case for the presumption to detain us by the home office to be illegal.they cannot prove that our detention is lawful but i believe that the courts are letting us down when seeking release on bail.