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

This is my judgment following an expedited hearing of an application by the Claimant for an interim order. The Claimant is a man from Nigeria who is being detained in prison by the Defendant in exercise of her immigration detention powers. The Claimant seeks an interim order requiring the Defendant to release the Claimant from immigration detention and to provide him with accommodation under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“IAA 1999”).

During the hearing, I indicated that I would be: (a) granting permission to apply for judicial review on four of the Claimant’s five grounds of challenge; (b) refusing permission for the Claimant to amend his Statement of Facts and Grounds (“SFG”) so as to add a sixth ground of challenge; and (c) making an interim order requiring the Defendant to make accommodation under section 95 of the IAA 1999 (“s.95 accommodation”) available for the Claimant, located within Scotland, with a view to his being released from immigration detention by no later than the 19^th day after the hearing.

Although I gave briefly indicated my reasons during the hearing, I reserved judgment so as to provide fuller reasons by way of a published public judgment. I considered the provision of my reasons in that way to be appropriate given the public interest significance of this case, relating as it does to a Claimant whose suitability for release into the community has sometimes been doubted because of the risks he has been thought to pose to others. A further public interest element relates to the complexities of this case arising from the interactions between the legal regime for immigration and asylum (including immigration detention and the provision of s.95 accommodation), and: (i) the criminal law regime of Scotland, under which the Claimant remains subject to a sentence of imprisonment passed by a Scottish court; (ii) the duties of an NHS Integrated Care Board (“ICB”) in England under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (“MHA 1983”); and (iii) the duties of local authorities in England under the Care Act 2014 (the “Care Act”). A published judgment will provide added transparency to the public regarding such interactions.

It is not, however, my role to conclusively determine, by way of this judgment, any points of law regarding such interactions. The matters I need to decide at this stage require me only to: (a) assess whether each of the Claimant’s grounds of challenge is arguable; and (b) decide what, if any, interim relief to grant.