Reported Case
High Court Grants Permission for Judicial Review in Complex Immigration Detention Case (15 May 2026)
Date: 15/05/2026
Duncan Lewis Solicitors has secured permission for judicial review in a significant immigration detention case, with the High Court granting permission on all three grounds and ordering the substantive hearing to be expedited. The judgment, handed down by Deputy High Court Judge Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC on 17 April 2026, raises important questions about the lawfulness of prolonged immigration detention, the treatment of vulnerable detainees and the limits of government redaction in judicial review proceedings.
Background
The claimant, an asylum seeker referred to as HPT under an anonymity order, had been detained for almost ten months pending deportation action. He arrived in the United Kingdom in May 2021 and, over the following years, accumulated a complex history involving criminal convictions, significant mental health difficulties and repeated engagement with the immigration system. By the time of the hearing, he was held at HMP Bullingdon rather than an immigration removal centre, due to the severity of his behaviour.
Throughout his detention, the claimant's mental health deteriorated markedly. He engaged in serious self-harm, was placed on suicide watch, and received a medico-legal report from Dr Syed Zia Ali diagnosing him with personality disorders, depression, psychotic symptoms including command hallucinations, and concluding that he was unfit to fly and at high risk of suicide. That report was served on the Secretary of State for the Home Department in February 2026.
The procedural history was equally troubled. Despite two sets of directions from the First-tier Tribunal in November and December 2025 requiring the defendant to address whether the claimant could rely on protection grounds in his appeal, the Home Office failed to respond. At the substantive appeal hearing on 10 February 2026, the defendant withdrew the challenged decision entirely — prompting FtT Judge McMahon to describe the defendant's engagement with the appeal as "lacking and, quite frankly, nothing short of appalling."
The Three Grounds and the Court's Analysis
Duncan Lewis advanced three grounds for judicial review on behalf of HPT. Ground one alleged breach of the Hardial Singh principles — the well-established framework governing the limits of immigration detention. Ground two alleged a breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ground three alleged breach of the Home Office's Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy and the Tameside duty to make reasonable enquiries.
The court granted permission on all three grounds. On ground one, the judge found it arguable that the second, third and fourth Hardial Singh principles had each been breached, having regard to the ten-month duration of detention, the procedural failings of the defendant, and the absence of any firm removal timetable. The FtT's criticism of the defendant's conduct was found to underscore the arguability of the claim.
On ground three, the judge declined to invoke section 31(3D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to refuse permission, finding the evidence of Dr Ali gave the ground real substance.
The judgment also addresses the post-Illegal Migration Act 2023 detention regime and confirms that, notwithstanding recent statutory amendments, detention decisions remain subject to anxious judicial scrutiny and full Article 5 ECHR review where liberty is at stake.
In particular, the court engaged with the amendments introduced by section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to Schedule 3 of the Immigration Act 1971, together with the High Court's recent decision in MXV, which examined the extent to which Parliament has modified the traditional Hardial Singh analysis. While recognising that the statutory framework places primary responsibility on the Secretary of State to assess the reasonableness of detention, the court emphasised that judicial scrutiny remains especially exacting where personal liberty is engaged.
Although interim relief was refused, the court weighed the significant public protection risks, the risk of absconding and the prison's ongoing management of the claimant's mental health, the judge made clear that these were matters for the substantive hearing. Crucially, the court directed that the final hearing be listed in the week of 18 May 2026 on an expedited basis, reflecting the seriousness of the ongoing detention.
The Redaction Issue: An Important Ruling on Open Justice
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment concerns the defendant's application to redact the names of junior civil servants working within the Home Office's Special Cases Unit from disclosed documents. The defendant argued that, given the sensitive national security work performed by SCU officials, disclosure of their names posed a real risk to their personal safety.
The court rejected that application in respect of the civil servants' names, drawing on the Court of Appeal's authoritative judgment in R (IAB) v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 66. The judge confirmed that the routine redaction of civil servants' names in judicial review proceedings is inimical to open government and constitutes a breach of the duty of candour. To justify redaction, the defendant must produce evidence of a specific, credible and immediate threat to the individuals concerned — not merely generalised assertions about the national threat level or speculative risks of harassment. That threshold had not been met.
The court did, however, permit redactions of contact details, email addresses and third-party personal data in line with established guidance — drawing a clear and principled distinction between those categories and the identity of decision-makers. This aspect of the judgment offers helpful clarification for practitioners and public authorities alike on where the line falls between legitimate confidentiality and impermissible opacity.
About Duncan Lewis Solicitors
Duncan Lewis Solicitors is one of the UK's leading publicly funded law firms, with a long-standing reputation for representing the most vulnerable members of society. The firm has offices across England and Wales and provides specialist legal advice across immigration, public law, family, housing, mental health, crime and community care. Duncan Lewis has an unrivalled track record of bringing test cases at the highest levels of the domestic and European court systems, consistently achieving landmark outcomes that shape the law and protect fundamental rights.
About James Packer
James Packer is a Director and Head of the Public Law department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, and the supervising solicitor on this case. Ranked as a Next Generation Partner in the Legal 500 and recognised in Chambers & Partners for Immigration: Human Rights, Asylum and Deportation, James is consistently described by the legal directories as an "exceptional" practitioner and an "outstanding lawyer" who "identifies points with ease and precision and thinks tactically."
James has extensive experience of unlawful detention challenges across every conceivable basis — from cases where clients had British citizenship, rights of abode or EU law rights that the Home Office had failed to recognise, to challenges founded on mental health, medical conditions, country conditions and trafficking. His broader practice encompasses legal aid litigation, costs appeals, access to justice challenges and test cases on the most complex points of public law.