CA-2024-000740 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1375

Information was received in the Home Office on 4 October 2023 to the effect that students who were Indian nationals were working in breach of their leave conditions at Lucky’s Off Licence in south London and were being paid in cash. On 7 November 2023 officers working in Home Office South London Immigration Compliance and Enforcement team went to the premises. One of the officers was Kathryn Papanicolaou who has made a witness statement and provided copies of contemporary records of the actions that were taken and the interviews that were held. It is accepted in these proceedings that this court is to proceed on the basis that that evidence is correct (although it is fair to say that, in certain respects, the claimant does not accept the description of events).

The immigration officer says that she entered Lucky’s at 14.39 on 7 November 2023 and saw a male walking from behind the counter into the main part of the shop. She says she introduced herself to him as an immigration officer from the Home Office, and she was wearing work clothes which showed that she was with immigration enforcement. She says that she explained to him that they were in the premises to talk to people about their working hours. She says that the male said his name was Nagappan Singaram, that is, the claimant, that he arrived in the United Kingdom on 22 October 2022 and that he had a student visa valid until September 2024. He accepted that he was only permitted to work 20 hours per week in term time. On asking him further exploratory questions to find out about his work pattern at Lucky’s, the immigration officer learned that the claimant was also working 20 hours a week atTesco.

In the light of all the information the immigration officer now had, she says that she decided at 14.59 to arrest the claimant as a person liable to detention. That arrest was recorded in her digital pocket notebook and a copy of the printout of the relevant entry was exhibited to her witness statement. She says that she explained to the claimant that he was under arrest, explained the reasons for the arrest, and explained that he was not free to leave but had to go with the enforcement officers. She said he would be able to speak to a lawyer later if he wished. She says that she cautioned him on arresting him, using the standard form of caution for arrests in such matters. The caution was expressed in the following terms:

“I am an Immigration Officer. I am arresting you on suspicion that you are a person liable to immigration detention. This is because I suspect that you have breached a condition of your leave by working more hours than you are permitted. This is not an arrest for a criminal offence. Do you understand?”

The immigration officer then asked the claimant about mitigating circumstances. At that stage, the claimant was under arrest and being considered for detention. The questions and answers were again recorded in the officer’s digital notebook and a copy of the printout of the relevant entry was exhibited to her witness statement. The claimant was asked specific questions and answered “no” in response to questions about whether he had any medical condition, was on medication, was dependent on alcohol or drugs or had any suicidal thoughts. He was also asked if he had a partner or dependants in or outside the United Kingdom. He answered saying he had no partners or dependants in or outside the United Kingdom. He signed the digital record of that interview.

The claimant was then taken from the premises and taken to the holding room of the Home Office at Lunar House in Croydon. The immigration enforcement team stopped at his home en route to enable him to collect his Indian passport. He was interviewed at Lunar House and, again, a printout of the digital record was exhibited to the officer’s witness statement.

The record shows that the claimant was asked specific questions and gave specific answers. The interview note shows that the claimant was asked about his studies. He confirmed that he was studying on a 21 month course for an MSC in management which was due to finish in May 2024. He had paid £19,350 for that course. Some was paid in India and some in the United Kingdom. He got the money for the course from his family and his savings.

He was asked about his activities at Lucky’s. He had said at some stage that he was training there. One question was “You stated you were training [at] Lucky’s off licence when did you start training?”. The claimant is recorded as answering “October 15 2023”. He said the training was stock filling. He said he heard about the training from a friend and went to see the boss who told him he could do training by filling shelves. He was asked “What days do you train at Lucky’s?” He answered “Monday and Tuesday” and gave the hours he trained on a Monday as 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and on Tuesday as again 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. He was asked about his work at Tesco and what hours he worked and answered “Friday night and Saturday night” and said the hours were 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. and said it was a total of 19 hours a week. He said that he had worked at Tesco since November 2022. He was asked what he would do after the training at Lucky’s finished and he said he would get a job with his boss. He was asked if he was leaving Tesco and said “Yes, when I am trained for Lucky’s as I do not want to do night shifts anymore”.

At 19.05, after the interview had finished, the immigration officer asked the claimant if he would make a voluntary departure from the United Kingdom. He said he did not wish to make a voluntary departure because he wished to remain in the United Kingdom to complete his studies. A record of that was also entered into the digital pocket notebook and a copy of the printout of that entry was exhibited to the officer’s witness statement.