High Court suspends Home Office deportations policy

21 March 2019 by

R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] CO/543/2019, Walker J, 14 March 2019, written reasons here

The High Court delivered the latest in a series of blows to the Government’s ‘hostile environment’ immigration policy on Thursday.

Walker J granted Medical Justice an interim injunction which will prevent the Home Office from removing or deporting people from the country without notice.


Medical Justice is an independent charity. It describes itself as a “tiny organisation” working for the health rights of those held in indeterminate immigration detention. It seeks judicial review of the defendant’s “Removal Notice Window” (RNW) policy. Under the policy, those liable to removal from the UK are given a short window to identify any new ground for being able to stay in the country. Once this window has elapsed, such persons are given a 28 day or 3 month ‘removal window’, but the policy does not require any further notice be given as to the actual date or time of removal. The effect of this, suggests Charlotte Kilroy QC, is to

produce a situation where there’s no access to justice in relation to the decision the secretary of state makes.

The RNW policy was previously challenged in R (FB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKUT 428. In that case Lane J and O’Connor UTJ found that the policy was, as a general matter, compatible with access to justice but was legally deficient, both in its treatment of cases where a removal window is deferred and in the lack of information regarding place and route of removal. Permission has been granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and a hearing is expected in June or July.

Although the present case was held not to be materially different from FB, it relies on 11 further case studies concerning a much wider range of categories. Medical justice has published summaries of some of these: In one, an asylum seeker was removed same-day without access to legal advice. In another, the suicidal father of a British child was told to come to an interview which never took place; he was instead detained and removed with no access to a legal representative. In both cases the Home Office later brought the men back to the UK, accepting that removal was unlawful.


The claimant sought an interim injunction. The case studies, they argued, were cogent evidence that individuals with good grounds to challenge removal risk being removed without a chance to explain those grounds. Walker J, in his reasons for granting the injunction, stated that

On the face of those case studies there appears to be strong reason for a real concern that the policy unjustifiably impedes access to justice. [3]

The defendant argued that such concern did not require an interim injunction, submitting that

  1. the lawfulness of the RNW policy is the central feature in both FB and the present case;
  2. changes to the policy since FB are immaterial to the present case;
  3. the Upper Tribunal in FB had already ruled on the lawfulness of the policy;
  4. the claimant’s submissions do not change the legal position in FB,
  5. the present case is distinguishable from R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1425 (Admin), where an injunction was granted; and
  6. MJ was simply having a second bite of the cherry; all relevant points should have been raised in FB.


Walker J accepted the defendant’s first three submissions, but rejected submissions 4, 5 and 6. The case studies were not before the Upper Tribunal in FB. While the legal arguments raised were similar, they arose on a different factual basis.

Walker J then distinguished the present claim from civil claims, where a second bite of the cherry would be an abuse of process, stating

It is at least arguable that there is no abuse of process when, as a result of concern about an earlier decision made on limited evidence, further evidence is gathered for a public law challenge. [6]

Finally, Walker J considered the balance of convenience, and decided that

There can be a danger of disruptive tactics, but that is not so great as to outweigh the danger that individuals who ought not to be removed will be deprived of access to justice. [7]

In light of this, the interim injunction was granted.

Implications and reception

The case now awaits a full hearing in June or July. In the interim, the injunction prevents the Home Office from removing or deporting individuals without notice as to date and time. According to the Home Office’s submissions, this will have necessitated the cancellation of 69 removals scheduled for Thursday and Friday.

In response to the judgement, Law Society president Christina Blacklaws said

The Law Society welcomes the High Court decision to suspend the current immigration policy which unjustifiably allows for people to be ejected from the UK with just hours’ notice, creating a grave risk of unlawful removal that may put lives at risk.

Samuel March is a paralegal and is due to start the Bar Professional Training Course later this year.

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: