Duncan Lewis Public Law Team Rescue Stranded Client (14 March 2025)

Over the preceding 4 years, the Claimant (“A”) had chased the Home Office regarding his EUSS application. The Home Office responded that they were delaying consideration of his (in time) EUSS application due to concerns that he had been arrested and charged with criminal offences which they needed to investigate further. However, after A provided the Home Office with proof of his (blameless) criminal record- A understood that the matter had been, or at the very least would soon be, resolved. A then left the UK for a short holiday whilst his EUSS application was still pending. When he tried to re-enter at the end of his holiday, he was de-planed and informed that he was being excluded from the UK on the basis that a deportation order was being enforced against him due to an extensive criminal record.

 

A immediately protested that he had no criminal record and no adverse immigration history. In his correspondence with the Home Office after he was refused re-entry to the UK, they confirmed that their initial assessment was that his file had been mixed up with the records of someone else with the same nationality and both a (very) similar name and date of birth, and that our client simply needed to wait until the two files had been separated. However, A subsequently received a letter stating that the Home Office had concluded that there was no mistake, and that he was in fact the deportee but using a different identity, partly on the basis that a photo of him was present on the file of the deportee. A then sought assistance from the Duncan Lewis Public Law team.

 

We prepared a claim for judicial review. The information from the Home Office about the deportee was so sparse that it was challenging to demonstrate that he was a different person to A. This task was further complicated as it was apparent that the deportee had had a history of using false identities.

 

With very limited information from which to base our investigations Sarah and Annie, working under the close direction of James Packer, assembled a plethora of evidence spanning our client’s lifetime, which was submitted to the Upper Tribunal. This was described by UTJ Perkins as “an array of documentary evidence” which “presents a compelling prima facie case” that A was not the same individual as the deportee.

 

On the expiry of the truncated timetable for providing their response to our claim, the Home Office backed down and conceded that our client is not the individual who is excluded from the UK, and our client has now been allowed back into the UK and has reunited with his family.

 

The Home Office now accept that there was indeed an error that led to our client’s file being mixed with another person’s file. Although they have said that the cause of the error which led to the files being merged is still being investigated, it seems very likely that it is a result of a deliberate decision  by the Home Office to press ahead with a new database, despite warnings that it would generate inaccuracies.

 

A newspaper article published by The Guardian on 14 March 2024 revealed that:

• Major flaws in a huge Home Officeimmigration database have resulted in more than 76,000 people being listed with incorrect names, photographs or immigration status.
• Leaked internal documents reveal the scale of the database fiasco at the Home Office … The problem, which involves “merged identities”, where two or more people have biographical and biometric details linked incorrectly, is leaving people unable to prove their rights to work, rent housing or access free NHS treatment.
• Government sources confirmed that an investigation was under way by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is considering whether the failure represents data breaches.

 

‘It has been described as ‘echoes of Windrush’, linking it to the Windrush scandal.

 

In January, the Home Office knowingly exacerbated the problem when, after a year of planning, it changed the way the database linked individuals’ records in order to improve their accuracy for several million people.

 

A document seen by the Guardian highlights a “small but important downside […] a few thousand people in the database who (typically due to human error) had other people’s passport details recorded on their records. The trade-off here was deemed by the business [the Home Office] to be worth it, hence the approval to proceed.”

 

Information in the leaked documents suggests that data relating to at least 76,000 people has been affected. Yet, nearly a year after the article’s publication, there appears to b o clear plan to resolve the issues for the affected individuals.

 

A is now bringing a claim for substantial damages. The Public Law team at Duncan Lewis are ready to assist others who are facing similar issues arising from the mismanagement of their data by the Home Office.

 

We were assisted in the judicial review by Greg O Ceallaigh KC and Alex Schymyck of Garden Court Chambers.

 

Our Team

About James Packer

James Packer is a Director in the Public Law department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, specialising in judicial review, immigration, civil liberties, and costs litigation. Recognised by Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500 for his expertise, he regularly conducts test cases at the highest levels, including the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and European Court of Human Rights. His work spans unlawful detention, enforced removals, access to legal aid, and complex costs disputes. James has written numerous articles for Free Movement, wrote the chapter on costs in Criminal Judicial Review (ed Von Berg), and was assistant editor for the Free Movement Guide Costs in Immigration Cases.

 

About Sarah Mills

Sarah Mills is a Public Law solicitor within James Packer’s Public Law Team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. Her specialism is in human rights and public law; with a particular expertise in trafficking and asylum matters alongside a wife ranging practice in judicial review claimant challenges – particularly those related to immigration and civil liberties.

 

About  Annie Taylor

Annie Taylor is a caseworker working under the supervision of Director James Packer. Annie has her own immigration cases and works with James on public law issues in immigration and other contexts such as challenges to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and local council decisions in relation to housing and development.

 

Duncan Lewis Solicitors

Duncan Lewis Solicitors is an award-winning Times Top 250 law firm, which is ranked as Top Tier by both the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 directories. The company represents clients in more than 25 practice areas across 13 key offices nationwide. This year the company was crowned Law Firm of the Year at the Lexis Nexis awards 2024 and has been noted for its commitment to diversity and inclusion.

 

Footnote:

Windrush Lesson Learned Review by Wendy Williams:

 

“Firstly, the Home Office’s failure to keep accurate records makes it impossible to say how many people the scandal affected. Secondly, given the warning signs that were highlighted and the department’s responsibilities to respond to them, it should have taken steps to avoid the issue happening in the first place. Thirdly, having failed to do so, the department should, at the very least, have been alert to the possibility of these cases arising and proactive in identifying and dealing with them promptly and properly. The principles of good public administration demand no less.”