In the High Court of Justice- Queen’s Bench Division- Administrative Court
In this claim for judicial review the Claimant seeks a declaration that he was unlawfully detained by the Defendant, the Secretary of State, from 16 July 2012 until his release on bail on 24 June 2013, a period of 343 days. He also puts forward arguments in respect of detention for parts of that period. The Secretary of State was detaining the Claimant pending removal from the United Kingdom, as permitted and, latterly, mandated in respect of a foreign criminal by the UK Borders Act 2007, s 36(1) and s 36(2). It is the Claimant's case, in reliance on the principles initially derived from the judgment of Woolf J in R v Governor of Durham Prison ex parte Hardial Singh  1 WLR 704, that during the relevant period the Defendant was not acting lawfully in detaining him because (in short) there was no prospect that the Claimant would in fact be deported within a reasonable period.
Timothy Brennan QC held;
“In my judgment the Claimant's case that he was detained unlawfully for the whole of the period from 16 July 2012 until 24 June 2013 is unfounded and I reject it. He was detained for the purposes of deportation and, having regard to his history and criminal record, he was not detained for more than a reasonable period. Nor was he so detained without a reasonable prospect that he would be deported. I also reject the contentions that his detention was unlawful for any part of the period from 16 July 2012 until the date of the deportation order (15 November 2012) or until the date on which deportation to the KRG became a possibility (28 January 2013). Nor, the light of the possibility of deportation to the KRG, did detention become unlawful when it became clear that deportation to Iran was not possible in the short or medium term (16 May 2013). I also reject the contentions that such delay as there may have been in dealing with the Claimant's case crossed the borderline from administrative failing into illegality and that there was anything unlawful in the Defendant's reaction to the medical report of Dr Hartree.”