Detention Action: Court of Appeal rules policy of detaining asylum seekers for 'quick processing' of their appeals is not lawful

Detention Action reports today that the Court of Appeal has ruled that a second element of the Home Office's Detained Fast Track Processes (DFT) is unlawful.

EIN members can read the judgment here.

Today's judgment follows the July 2014 decision in Detention Action v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2245 (Admin) (see here) which found that the DFT, as operated, was unlawful as it carried "an unacceptably high risk of unfairness".

Image credit: WikipediaIn today's judgment, Detention Action challenged the lawfulness of the policy of detaining asylum seekers during their appeals purely on the grounds that their claims could be processed quickly. Detention Action argued that asylum seekers who pose no risk of absconding should be released.

Detention Action says that the Court upheld its appeal on the grounds that the policy was not sufficiently clear and transparent.

"[I]t cannot be said that the policy has been clearly published," Lord Justice Beatson stated in today's judgment, and held that "on the fairly limited evidence that has been put before the court, after the Secretary of State's decision and pending appeal, detention in the fast-track by the application of the 'quick processing' criteria cannot be said to be justified and is therefore not lawful."

In concluding, Lord Justice Beatson said: "I have concluded that detention in the fast-track by the application of the 'quick processing' criteria, after the Secretary of State's decision and pending appeal is not objectionable in principle and does not breach the DFT Guidance. I have, however, also concluded that it does not satisfy the requirements of clarity and transparency. Had it been necessary to decide the point I would also have concluded that, on the evidence before the court, it cannot at present be said to be justified."

Sonal Ghelani of the Migrants' Law Project, the solicitor acting for Detention Action, was quoted as saying: "It appears that the Home Office has been detaining asylum seekers unlawfully for their appeals for the last six years. It cannot be right or fair that the Home Secretary, as a party to an appeal, is entitled to detain her opponent when the effect of detention is to make the appellant's conduct of the appeal much more difficult and therefore to make it less likely that he or she will be successful."

A summary of today's judgment by Detention Action is available here.

Detention Action's legal team have also prepared a short checklist of suggested actions for those representing detainess in the DFT and says that they can make immediate applications to the Secretary of State for release. The checklist is attached below.

According to Denetion Action, the Home Office has indicated that it will release all asylum seekers in the DFT who are not at risk of absconding after it carries out assessments which are expected to be completed by December 19th.