Duncan Lewis secures release for highly vulnerable client following urgent interim relief application (26 February 2026)

Duncan Lewis Solicitors has secured the release of a highly vulnerable client from immigration detention following an urgent interim relief application in a rare and strategically complex case at the intersection of immigration detention, mental health law, and Section 117 aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983.

The case highlights serious multi-agency failures involving the Home Office and a local authority, and demonstrates Duncan Lewis’ expertise in high-stakes public law litigation where immigration enforcement, safeguarding duties, and public protection obligations collide.

Background

We acted for a Claimant diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, with a long history of detention in psychiatric hospitals under the Mental Health Act. Without structured and intensive support, he presented a high risk of harm to the public. The case therefore required not only legal precision, but careful navigation of risk management, safeguarding, and inter-agency responsibility.

The First-tier Tribunal granted the Claimant immigration bail, subject to suitable accommodation being identified and approved by Probation. His Probation Officer made clear that only 24/7 staffed supported living accommodation would adequately manage his severe mental health needs and associated risks. Without such provision, both the Claimant and the public would be exposed to serious harm. We represented the Claimant pro-bono at multiple bail review hearings in an effort to secure his release. 

Unlawful delay and prolonged detention

Despite the clarity of the position, the London Borough of Haringey failed to carry out a timely Section 117 aftercare assessment once bail was granted, notwithstanding the obvious and imminent need for aftercare accommodation.

At the same time, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as the detaining authority, failed to take leadership or coordinate effectively with the local authority to resolve the accommodation impasse. The consequence was prolonged and damaging detention, during which the Claimant’s mental health significantly deteriorated.

Although the local authority ultimately accepted that the proposed supported living accommodation fell within its Section 117 duties, it initially sought to avoid responsibility for funding the rent. We successfully challenged this position, demonstrating both the correct legal framework for funding under Section 117 and the authority’s own historic practice of funding supported living accommodation for this client, despite his lack of access to public funds.

Risky and unlawful alternatives

Rather than resolving the deadlock, the Secretary of State considered releasing the Claimant into homelessness — a course that would have placed him in immediate breach of his post-sentence supervision requirements, created unacceptable public protection risks, and exposed him to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

We proposed a lawful and pragmatic alternative: the grant of limited leave to remain without a “no recourse to public funds” condition, enabling access to housing benefit and resolving the funding barrier. That solution was not adopted.

Judicial review and interim relief

We therefore initiated judicial review proceedings against both Defendants, advancing claims under Articles 5 and 3 ECHR and established public law principles. We sought urgent interim relief in the form of a mandatory order compelling the authorities to work together to secure appropriate accommodation and bring the unlawful detention to an end.

The case exposed serious public law errors on both sides, including irrational decision-making and policy breaches by the Secretary of State, and unlawful delay by the local authority in breach of its statutory duties. Importantly, detention was unlawful from the outset under Hardial Singh principles, as removal to Eritrea was never a realistic prospect given the clear Article 3 barrier.

Outcome and significance

The proceedings resulted in the Claimant’s release from detention and the resolution of the accommodation impasse. The case stands as a powerful example of Duncan Lewis’ ability to unravel complex, multi-agency failures in high-risk detention cases — combining strategic litigation, rigorous public law analysis, and practical problem-solving to protect vulnerable individuals while addressing wider systemic failings.

The client was represented by lead solicitor Halima Safa supported by director Gemma Lynch, and trainee solicitors Michael O’Brien and Madhurra Sivathasan. Alex Schymyck of Garden Court Chambers was instructed as counsel in this matter.

About Halima Safa – Lead Solicitor

Halima Safa is a solicitor and supervisor in the Immigration department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. She specialises in advising clients on various immigration applications, including family and private life, human rights, long residence, and nationality. Halima’s practice also includes representing asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, and individuals with severe mental health conditions.