Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
- Julie Anderson and Ivan Hare (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Appellant
- Stephanie Harrison QC and Greg O'Ceallaigh (instructed by Wilsons LLP) for the Respondent
Judges
- LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL
- LORD CHIEF
- LORD JUSTICE
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Fardous v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns the detention of the Claimant pending his removal to Morocco. The Secretary of State, as Appellant, challenged a decision by the trial judge that the Claimant had been unlawfully detained from 8 November 2010 until his release on bail on 4 July 2011. The Claimant had a history of dishonesty, including providing false information in asylum and naturalisation applications and multiple prosecutions. After returning to the United Kingdom in 2009, the Claimant was detained pending removal to Morocco, but removal was delayed due to the prolonged failure of the Moroccan authorities to issue an Emergency Travel Document. The Secretary of State made repeated efforts to obtain the document and conducted periodic detention reviews. The Claimant was granted conditional bail in July 2011 and removed to Morocco in October 2011. The trial judge applied the Hardial Singh principles to conclude that the detention became unlawful on 8 November 2010, primarily due to the delay in obtaining the travel document and the reduced risk of absconding at that time.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the detention of the Claimant pending removal was lawful under the Hardial Singh principles, specifically concerning the reasonableness of the detention period.
- Whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the risk of absconding and the application of the principles relating to detention pending deportation.
- Whether the Secretary of State acted with reasonable diligence and expedition in attempting to secure the Claimant's removal.
- The proper approach for appellate courts in reviewing the reasonableness of detention under the Hardial Singh principles.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The trial judge misdirected himself by undervaluing the paramount importance of the risk of absconding, making it dependent on the risk of committing further offences.
- The judge incorrectly assessed the reasonable period of detention, failing to give proper weight to the high risk of absconding given the Claimant's history.
- The judge applied a subjective view with hindsight rather than an objective assessment based on the facts as they appeared to the Secretary of State at the time decisions were made.
- There are no fixed tariffs or yardsticks for detention periods, but the risk of absconding justifies continued detention pending removal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 |
Established principles governing lawful detention pending deportation (Hardial Singh principles). |
Applied as the foundational legal framework for assessing the lawfulness and reasonableness of detention. |
| R (Lumba) v Home Secretary [2011] UKSC 12; [2012] 1 AC 245 |
Restated and clarified the Hardial Singh principles and the requirement for reasonable diligence and proportionality in detention. |
Guided the court's interpretation of lawful detention and the necessity of balancing factors including risk of absconding. |
| R(I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] INLR 196 |
Reformulated the Hardial Singh principles, emphasizing the purpose of detention and reasonableness of duration. |
Confirmed the principles applied and emphasized the need for reasonable diligence in effecting removal. |
| R (Francis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] 1 WLR 567 |
Contextualized the Hardial Singh principles in detention after conviction pending removal. |
Supported the view that Hardial Singh principles restrict the scope of detention powers. |
| R (Muqtaar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] 1 WLR 649 |
Set out the appellate court's approach to reviewing reasonableness of detention decisions. |
Used to establish the standard of review requiring deference to the trial judge's factual findings and legal application. |
| R (JS (Sudan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1378 |
Rejected fixed temporal tariffs for detention periods pending removal. |
Supported the court's rejection of attempts to impose fixed detention periods and emphasized case-by-case assessment. |
| R (NAB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 3137 (Admin) |
Confirmed that setting fixed detention tariffs is inappropriate and repugnant. |
Reinforced the principle that detention assessments must be individualized without reliance on fixed time periods. |
| R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 2506 (Admin) |
Clarified that courts assess detention lawfulness based on circumstances as known to the Secretary of State at the time. |
Applied to ensure the court's review is objective and does not rely on hindsight. |
| R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 804 |
Confirmed the paramount importance of the risk of absconding in detention decisions. |
Supported the court's emphasis on the risk of absconding as a critical factor in assessing lawful detention. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by affirming that the detention power was exercised for the purpose of removal and that the Secretary of State acted with reasonable diligence. The central legal question concerned the application of the second and third Hardial Singh principles, which require detention to be for a reasonable period and for the Secretary of State to cease detention if removal within a reasonable time is not likely.
The court acknowledged the Claimant's history of dishonesty and the initial high risk of absconding. However, the judge found that by the first anniversary of detention, the risk of absconding had diminished due to the Claimant's genuine expressed desire to return to Morocco. The primary obstacle to removal was the delay by the Moroccan authorities in issuing the Emergency Travel Document, a factor beyond the Secretary of State's control.
The judge balanced the risk of absconding against the length of detention and concluded that after 12 months, and particularly by 8 November 2010, the detention was no longer reasonable because there was no realistic prospect of removal in the near future. The court emphasized that no fixed temporal tariffs exist for detention periods and that each case requires careful, fact-specific scrutiny.
The Secretary of State's criticism that the judge applied hindsight was rejected. The judge's conclusion was an objective assessment based on what officials ought to have appreciated at the time. The risk of absconding remains paramount but cannot justify indefinite detention. The court thus upheld the trial judge's decision that the detention became unlawful on 8 November 2010.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL, affirming the trial judge's finding that the Claimant's detention was unlawful from 8 November 2010 until his release on bail in July 2011.
The direct effect of this decision is that detention pending removal must be carefully reviewed in light of all relevant factors, especially the risk of absconding and the reasonableness of the detention period given obstacles to removal. The court reaffirmed that no fixed detention periods or tariffs apply, emphasizing the need for individualized assessment under the Hardial Singh principles. This decision does not establish new precedent but confirms existing legal standards and the proper approach to detention lawfulness reviews.
Click here to read the full judgment