header-logo header-logo

31 March 2022
Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

Phone & data seizure ruled unlawful

The Home Secretary unlawfully seized more than 2000 mobile phones from asylum seekers and extracted vast amounts of data, the High Court has held

The three claimants arrived on small boats between April and September 2020. They were immediately searched by immigration officers, had their mobile phones seized and retained and were ordered to provide their PIN under threat of criminal penalties. This was done as part of a blanket and unpublished Home Office policy.

The Home Secretary initially denied the policy existed but later admitted it did. She argued the Immigration Act 2016, s 48 empowered her to search arrivals, seize phones and extract data, but later conceded the policy was unlawful, and informed the court she self-referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office in July 2021 for breaching data protection law.

Ruling in R (HM) v Home Secretary [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin), Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Lane held the policy was unlawful and breached data protection and human rights laws (Art 8). They held s 48, Immigration Act 2016 could not be used to carry out personal searches, and also rejected Home Office arguments at trial that the phones had been seized under para 25B of Sched 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (items that could present a danger or assist a person to escape). They stopped short of ruling further on data protection issues since the Information Commissioner’s Office is now investigating the matter. A further hearing will now take place to decide remedies and consider breaches of the Home Secretary’s duty of candour.

Clare Jennings, director, Gold Jennings, representing HM, said: ‘But for this litigation the Home Secretary’s policies would have remained shrouded in secrecy, including the fact that for many months the entire contents of a person’s mobile phone―text messages, photographs, contacts etc―were being extracted and possibly shared with third parties.’

Daniel Carey, partner, Deighton Pierce Glynn, representing KH and MA, said: ‘All of this had real impacts on very vulnerable people, who lost touch with their families and couldn’t get their asylum documentation, while the phones languished on a shelf for many months, many which now cannot be returned.’
Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
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