header-logo header-logo

13 October 2017
Issue: 7765 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Government excluding adults at risk

Ruling means 100s of people may have been kept in unlawful detention

Home Office guidance on ‘adults at risk’ unlawfully excludes victims of torture at the hands of non-state actors, the High Court has held.

Ruling in Medical Justice v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2461 (Admin), Mr Justice Ouseley held that the statutory guidance ‘Adults at risk in immigration detention’ used an unlawfully restrictive definition of ‘torture’. Consequently, the guidance saved victims of state-sponsored torture from being held in immigration detention but failed to protect victims of torture by traffickers, terrorists and other groups.

Ouseley J held the narrowing of the definition of torture lacked ’rational or evidence base’. He said the definition used in the guidance ‘would require medical practitioners to reach conclusions on political issues which they cannot rationally be asked to reach’.

Jed Pennington, solicitor at Bhatt Murphy, who acted for Medical Justice and two of the detainees, said: ‘It is shameful that the Home Office reintroduced a definition of torture that the High Court had already thrown out under the guise of a policy that is supposed to be more protective of vulnerable detainees. Adults at risk is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced with a framework that genuinely protects the vulnerable with, as a minimum, a prohibition on the detention of all victims of torture or trauma.’

The seven detainees who, along with the charity Medical Justice, challenged the guidance included two women who suffered sexual violence, rape and human trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, said: ‘It is a damning indictment of our government that this sickening policy ever saw the light of day. In the UK, in 2017, the Home Secretary ignored medical expertise, basic humanity and the law to sign off a barbaric policy to lock up traumatised torture survivors.’

The ruling means hundreds of people may have been unlawfully detained—Medical Justice says it receives more than 1,000 referrals from among about 30,000 people held each year in immigration detention.

Issue: 7765 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll