Have a question?
033 3772 0409

Immigration Solicitors

JA Iraq et al v SSHD approved judgment - Duncan Lewis Solicitors involved in landmark judgment involving the detention of individuals under Dublin III Regulation (5 October 2018)

Date: 05/10/2018
Duncan Lewis, Immigration Solicitors, JA Iraq et al v SSHD approved judgment - Duncan Lewis Solicitors involved in landmark judgment involving the detention of individuals under Dublin III Regulation

Yesterday, 4th October, the Court of Appeal has handed down a landmark judgment pertaining to the detention of individuals under Dublin III Regulation.

Presiding was Master of the Rolls, Sales and Jackson LJJ. It was a 2:1 win with Sales LJ dissenting.

Background of the Appeals

The conjoined hearing of appeals related to three judgments that covered the cases of five individuals who were placed in detention for periods pending possible removal to other EU Member States pursuant to the asylum claim arrangements under the so-called Dublin III Regulation.

The Appellants were:

  1. Abdulkadir and Mohamed [the lead cases challenging removals to Austria and detention under Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulations, appealing against Irwin J’s decision (as he then was) [2016] EWHC 1504]

  2. Khalili and Hemmati [the lead cases challenging removals to Bulgaria and detention under Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulations appealing Garnham J’s judgment [2016] EWHC 1394(Admin)]

  3. SS was the lead case on Article 28 Dublin III Regulations. SS was the only case that was successful on this issue before the High Court. The Secretary of State appealed Mr John Howell QC’s judgment [2017] EWHC 1295 (Admin).

The appeals related to the effect and meaning of article 28 and 2(n) of Dublin III - which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation - and the effect of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C-528/15 Al Chodor EU:C:2017:2013; [2017] 4 WLR 125. The issues to be determined by the Court were as follows:

  1. Whether Hardial Singh principles and/or the Secretary of State’s published policy in Chapter 55 of the Enforcement Instructions Guidance (EIG) satisfied article 2 (n) and article 28 in relation to the periods of detention of the Appellants.

  2. If not, are damages payable in respect of the detention of the appellants either for a tort of false imprisonment or EU law under Factortame where damages are recoverable for a sufficient serious breach of EU law.

  3. The cases of Khalili and Hemmati also raised a distinct Hardial Singh issue.

The argument was that the only ground for detention was that specified under Article 28(2), that there was a significant risk of absconding.

It is notable that the Secretary of State conceded that article 28 had direct effect.


The Master of the Rolls and Peter Jackson LJ’s majority decisions were:

  1. In light of Al Chodor, it was clear that neither Hardial Singh principles nor Chapter 55 of the EIG had satisfied the requirements under article 28 and article 2 (n). They had not understood to be in dispute that Hardial Singh’s principles were insufficient. A list of criteria, some of which were relevant to absconding, and some of which were not, did not satisfy the Al Chodor requirements. They were not a “framework of certain predetermined limits” as required by Al Chodor for the deprivation of a fundamental right to liberty [article 6 right under the Charter].

  2. Domestic law of false imprisonment governs whether damages were payable in relation to detention.

  3. As the appeal was allowed under Article 28, the Court did not see it necessary to determine the Hardial Singh point raised in Khalili and Hemmati.

The court held that the Appellants’ appeal be allowed and will be subject to further directions pending any appeal by the Secretary of State.


Counsel Instructed: Nathalie Lieven QC of Blackstone Chambers, Hugh Southey QC of Matrix Chambers, David Chirico of One Pump Court; Greg O’ Ceallaigh, Irena Sabic, Mark Symes and Raza Halim of Garden Court Chambers.

Bahar Ata of Duncan Lewis Solicitors instructed by SS and Khalili and Krisha Prathepan of Duncan Lewis Solicitors instructed by Abdulkadir and Mohammed.

Duncan Lewis Public Law Solicitors

The Duncan Lewis Public Law department continues to be recommended by Legal 500. It has been previously recommended for its depth of experience in immigration and civil liberties challenges and is acknowledged as having a "stellar reputation in handling test cases". The Legal 500 2017 edition applauds Duncan Lewis for its specialism in judicial review and Court of Appeal Cases.

The Public Law team is well established and known by the Legal Aid Agency, the Courts, and the Treasury Solicitor. Duncan Lewis have experience in all aspects of judicial review claimant work, including obtaining emergency orders and other interim relief to prevent breaches of human rights, following up judicial reviews with actions for damages in both the County and High Court and successfully pursuing judicial review matters to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Duncan Lewis carry out both publicly and privately funded work.

To speak to a member of our Public Law department, call 033 3772 0409.

For all Immigration related matter contact us now.Contact Us

Call us now on 033 3772 0409 or click here to send online enquiry.
Duncan Lewis is the trading name of Duncan Lewis (Solicitors) Limited. Registered Office is Spencer House, 29 Grove Hill Road, Harrow, HA1 3BN. Company Reg. No. 3718422. VAT Reg. No. 718729013. A list of the company's Directors is displayed at the registered offices address. Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority . Offices all across London and in major cities in the UK. ©Duncan Lewis >>Legal Disclaimer, Copyright & Privacy Policy. Duncan Lewis do not accept service by email.