Law Report: Asylum-seeker's damages claim was barred
LAW REPORT: 19 March 1997
Wednesday 19 March 1997
The Home Office did not owe a duty of care to an asylum-seeker, whose detention had been unnecessarily protracted by the negligence of the immigration officers responsible for interviewing him, so as to enable him to sue the Home Office for damages for negligence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the plaintiff, an asylum-seeker from Liberia referred to as "W" to protect his identity, against a preliminary ruling of Sir Michael Davies, sitting as a High Court judge on 6 June 1996, in favour of the Home Office.
W claimed that, as a result of the negligence of immigration officers, he had wrongfully been detained pending resolution of his asylum claim. It was alleged that interviews of W had been conducted negligently and that the (unsatisfactory) answers to someone else's interview had negligently been placed in W's file, causing his detention to be extended beyond the date when it should have ended. The Home Office accepted that errors had been made but denied liability in negligence.
The issues raised were (1) whether the Home Office owed W a duty of care; and (2) whether, if his detention was increased by the Home Office's negligence, the additional period of detention constituted loss or damage in respect of which damages could be awarded.
Nicholas Blake QC and Tim Owen (Winstanley Burgess) for W; John Howell QC and Robin Tam (Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Office.
Lord Woolf MR, giving a judgment of the court, said it was important to stress that whatever was done by or on behalf of the defendant was done pursuant to a statutory regulatory scheme for the control of immigration into the UK of those who had no right to enter or remain. That scheme was contained in the Immigration Act 1971.
It was accepted that, under this scheme, individuals requiring leave to enter enjoyed no right or presumption of en-titlement to be at large before leave was granted. A wide discretion was given to immigration officers not only whether to admit detain or release but also in respect of the investigations they were entitled to make. The relevant statutory provisions were concerned with the giving of authority to detain; actual detention was in the hands of other persons.
It was not contested that the plaintiff was lawfully detained at all times. Nor was it contended that an invalid decision authorising detention made the detention unlawful.
The powers given to immigration officers were quintessentially those which were enforced by judicial review. No cause of action existed giving a right to damages for breach of a statutory duty and no such breach was alleged. The plaintiff sought to rely on the tort of negligence, in the form of "negligent detention".
The principles to be applied in determining whether a duty of care arose were well established. For a duty of care to arise, there must, inter alia, be a relationship of sufficient "proximity" between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it was owed. The mere existence of a relationship brought about by one party exercising a statutory power vis-a-vis another was not itself sufficient to found proximity.
The process whereby a decision-making body gathered information and came to its decision could not be the subject of an action in negligence. It sufficed to rely on the absence of the required proximity.
In gathering information and taking it into account the defendant's officers were acting pursuant to their statutory powers and within that area of their discretion where only deliberate abuse would pro-vide a private remedy. For them to owe a duty of care to immigrants would be inconsistent with the proper performance of their responsibilities as immigration officers.
In the circumstances, it was not fair or reasonable to impose liability for negligence in the case of an immigration officer performing his public duty.
The first preliminary issue would therefore be answered in favour of the Home Office. The second point therefore need not be decided, but their Lordships would have decided it in the plaintiff's favour.
Paul Magrath, Barrister
- 1 Ashya King missing: Police hunt five-year-old boy with brain tumour snatched from Southampton hospital by his parents
- 2 Notting Hill Carnival: Woman shares selfie after being ‘punched in face for telling man to stop groping her’
- 3 Daily Show's Jon Stewart destroys Fox News for its Ferguson coverage
- 4 Botched ice bucket challenge leaves man critically injured after plane drops hundreds of gallons of water
- 5 Friends reunion: Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Kudrow and Courteney Cox perform mini sketch on Jimmy Kimmel Live
Ashya King missing: Police hunt five-year-old boy with brain tumour snatched from Southampton hospital by his parents
YouTube video posted by Isis militants shows 'execution of 250 Syrian soldiers'
Daily Show's Jon Stewart destroys Fox News for its Ferguson coverage
Californian drought is so severe it's 'causing the ground to move'
Botched ice bucket challenge leaves man critically injured after plane drops hundreds of gallons of water
Exclusive: We share blame for creating 'jihad generation', says Muslim strategist
Robin Williams Emmys tribute led by Billy Crystal criticised for including 'racist' joke about Muslim woman
The Rotherham child abuse scandal is a tale of apologists, misogyny and double standards
Scottish independence TV debate: Pumped-up Alex Salmond bounces back in bruising second round against Alistair Darling
Do you realise just how foolish the UK looks?
Ukip Douglas Carswell defection: Tory MP jumps ship to join Nigel Farage
- < Previous
- Next >
£32000 - £40000 per annum + bonus: Ashdown Group: HR Manager (Generalist) -Old...
£45000 - £50000 per annum: Ashdown Group: Talent / Learning & Development Mana...
Up to £40,000: Ashdown Group: Standalone HR Manager role for an SME business b...
£350 - £400 per day: Orgtel: HR Analyst - Banking - Bristol - £350 - £400 per ...