Child detention: More smoke and mirrors

13 January 2011 by

R (on the application of) Reetha Suppiah and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Interveners [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin) – Read judgment

A high court judge has ruled that two asylum seekers and their children were unlawfully detained at Yarl’s Wood immigration centre last year.

This ruling will add fuel to the flames of the debate over whether the government is truly committed to ending the detention of children in immigration centres, or whether they intend merely to “minimise” it.

The petitioners were two failed asylum seekers, 37-year-old Malaysian nurse Reetha Suppiah and 25-year-old Nigerian national Sakinat Bello. They were arrested by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) in February 2010 and were taken to Yarl’s Wood, the UK’s main removal centre for women and children on the ground, pending arrangements for their removal from the UK. With them were Suppiah’s two boys, aged one and 11, and Sakinat’s two year old daughter. They were detained for 17 and 12 days respectively.
The Claimants sought a declaration that the Government policy on detaining minors at the centre was so flawed that it could not be operated lawfully. Their grounds for challenge further alleged that the rights of the Claimants under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the European Convention had been breached.

Legal Basis for Detention

In all the controversy surrounding child detention for immigration purposes it is easy to lose sight of the statutory underpinning of the Secretary of State’s power to detain in these circumstances. A person may be detained pending deportation pursuant to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 of the Immigration Act 1971, and a number of factors may be taken in to account in determining whether this detention is necessary. Refusal of voluntary repatriation is one of them.

Judicial opinion differs as to the weight to be attached to this factor but no-one denies its relevance; as Toulson LJ said in R(A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department,

it is important not only as evidence of the risk of absconding but also because there is a big difference between administrative detention in circumstances where there is no immediate prospect of the detainee being able to return to his country of origin and detention in circumstances where he could return at once. In the latter case the loss of liberty involved in the individual’s continued contention is a product of his own making.

In this case Wyn Williams J did not consider that voluntary return had not been properly or adequately offered to the claimants, and therefore this was not a factor which justified detention. And the issue of failure to adhere to and/or apply the Defendant’s policy on safeguards for children was not on its own determinative. There were, according to the judge, much more wide-ranging reasons why this detention was unlawful – “in the light of domestic legislation, principles of domestic law which have evolved in the courts and by virtue of Articles 5 and 8 of the ECHR.”

The sixty-six page judgment – which is heavily fact-specific – does little to elucidate what these principles are.

The UKBA Policy

A policy entitled “Enforcement Instructions” setting out specific safeguards for children under immigration control was brought in to implement the requirements of Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. It contains a wealth of provisos and instructions designed to promote the welfare of children, making it clear that detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary. Officials must consider all reasonable alternatives to detention; they must take in to account relevant factors when considering the need for detention, such as evidence of a determined attempt to breach immigration laws such as clandestine entry. Any decision to detain an entire family must “always be taken with due regard to Article 8 EHCR”. (Chapter 55.9 )

However, the bottom line is still that illegal entrants are not immunised from immigration controls because they have children with them:

families including those with children can be detained on the same footing as all other persons liable to detention and in line with the general detention criteria (55.1)

Wyn Williams J did not see how this last “suggestion” could be compatible with Section 55 of the 2009 Act. But that section refers to the special factors to be taken in to account in the decision to detain families with children; it has no basis in (a non-existent) statutory exception to the means by which the UKBA enforces normal immigration controls. In any event the judge, despite his misgivings about that particular section, had no doubt that the policy itself was still lawful. He rejected the claimants’ assertion that the policy could never be operated lawfully in practice, pointing in particular the impracticability of their call for the involvement of a social worker at the intitial detention stage (see para 213)

The claimants may have been unlucky in drawing a judge who had specifically ruled, in an earlier case, that the UKBA policy conforms to the UK’s obligations under UN Charter on the Rights of the Child; in any event he was not prepared to change his position on this. The focus of his determination therefore had to be on the level of adherence to it:

The Defendant’s current policy relating to detaining families with children is not unlawful. There is, nonetheless, a significant body of evidence which demonstrates that employees of UKBA have failed to apply that policy with the rigour it deserves.

There is anyway considerable uncertainty over whole question of whether failure by the Home Secretary to act in accordance with her published policies relating to detention renders the detention in question unlawful. The Supreme Court is about to give judgment in two cases which will provide the answer to the point and others related to it (the appeals from the Court of Appeal in R(SK(Zimbabwe)) v SSHD and R(WL) (Congo) v SSHD.

Convention Rights

The claimants got home, generally, on their Convention rights, although it is difficult to pick out with any precision the ratio of this part of the judgment, occluded as it is in the dense mass of material advanced by the intervening parties. Two out of the three Convention claims were successful: Articles 5 and 8. The former merited no discussion in the judgment. In respect of the latter, the claimants submitted that when balancing competing considerations under the right to respect for family life, the paramount consideration is the interests of the child or children.

The judge rejected this submission, along with the claimants’ contention that, in considering whether there was evidence of inhuman and degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3, the normal high threshold should be lowered when the subject is a child with poor English. Such favouritism in its application would invite further criticism of the Convention from those who see it as something as a hostage to fortune in immigration matters.

The most noteworthy feature of this judgment is that nowhere does it say – nor was it contended by the claimants themselves – that a policy which permits the detention of families with children can never be lawful, or that detention of children can never be lawful whatever the terms of the Home Office policy. This argument is therefore still unvindicated by the courts; it remains to be seen whether it wins the day by virtue of government action.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;

  1. Law Think says:

    As Rabinder Singh QC argued, surely ‘the policy cannot lawfully be operated in practice’. The fact that, in 2009, one child was held for 158 days is testament to this.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: