AC-2025-LON-001896 - [2025] EWHC 2231 (Admin)

Notwithstanding that I have refused permission for the Claimant to rely upon the medico-legal reports of Dr Bourdillon-Schicker as expert evidence in these proceedings, I have considered his reports as effectively forming part of the submissions on behalf of the Claimant. I have done so because his reports include a convenient summary of the various information from various medical professionals which has been available to the Defendant regarding the Claimant’s mental health.

In my view, that information, even seen in its totality, does not come close to establishing any breach of Article 3 of the Convention Rights. The threshold for establishing a breach of Article 3 is a high one. This is a case in which the Claimant appears to have suffered some deterioration in his mental health prior to his being in immigration detention, since there was a long interruption to his receiving slow-release anti-psychotic medication by ‘depot’ injections whilst he was in prison in Scotland pursuant to orders of the Scottish criminal court. After the Claimant entered immigration detention, his mental health and medication has been reviewed and he has been provided with a more effective medication regime. He has also been moved to the prison’s medical wing. It is not surprising that it took time to find the right medical regime for the Claimant, partly through a necessary process of ‘trial and error’. These steps have gone some way to improving the Claimant’s mental health, such that his current solicitors are satisfied that he has capacity. He has been found not to cross the threshold for detention under section 3 MHA 1983. In my view, the medical evidence does not suffice to establish an arguable case of breach of Article 3.

Whilst Ms Besso, on behalf of the Claimant, makes the point that not all of the Claimant’s medical records have yet been disclosed by the bodies that have provided mental healthcare for him, it would not, in my view, be appropriate for me to grant permission for the proposed Ground 6 on the basis that ‘something may turn up’. There is already a wealth of medical records in the bundles, and they are sufficient to enable me to have a good level of insight into the assessments made by medical professionals of the Claimant’s mental health during his detention.

I therefore refuse the Claimant’s application to amend his SFG so as to add proposed Ground 6. As that proposed Ground is not arguable, it is not in the interests of justice to permit the amendment. Moreover, had I permitted the amendment, I would have gone on to refuse permission to apply for judicial review on Ground 6.