CASE OF AHMED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)
Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano
4. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in London. 5. The applicant left Somalia with his family for the Netherlands in 1992 when he was fifteen years old. After claiming asylum, it would appear that the family were given a period of leave to remain in the Netherlands. During this period the applicant married and had a son, born in 1994. The applicant’s family travelled to the United Kingdom in 1998. The applicant initially remained in the Netherlands but on 11 December 1999 he arrived in the United Kingdom, where he claimed asylum. In doing so, he provided the immigration authorities with a false name and a false immigration history in order to avoid being sent back to the Netherlands. Although the asylum application was unsuccessful the applicant was granted exceptional leave to remain until 2004. 6. The applicant received ten criminal convictions over the period from 16 November 2001 to 4 August 2005. In December 2007 he was convicted of a public order offence and of failing to surrender. He was sentenced to four and a half months’ imprisonment. 7. On 29 January 2008 the applicant was served with notice that the Secretary of State intended to make a deportation order against him. The same letter refused an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision to deport him on 1 February 2008. That appeal was dismissed on 30 June 2008 and his appeal rights were exhausted on 8 July 2008. 8. On 8 February 2008, when the applicant had served half of his final custodial sentence and was eligible for release from prison, he was detained under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 pending the making of a deportation order against him. The Secretary of State signed the deportation order on 29 October 2008 and he was thereafter detained under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 pending his removal from the United Kingdom. 9. On 2 June 2009 removal directions were set for 17 June 2009. However, they were cancelled on 16 June 2009 when the applicant made an application to this Court (application no. 26023/09), which granted an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 10. The applicant’s detention was reviewed monthly and the review forms set out the reasons for maintaining detention. The form from July 2009 includes the following statement in reference to the Rule 39 measure: “Whilst this means that enforced removal is not possible, [the applicant] could reduce the length of time he spends in detention by withdrawing voluntarily”. A similar point features in some, if not all, of the later forms. The form for February 2010 notes that “Rule 39 ECHR is a barrier to removal but I note that FRS [Facilitated Return Scheme] is an option that should be explored to the full to expedite his removal from the UK”. Likewise, the form for July 2010 states that “[t]he length of detention is a direct result of his appeals against deportation and, although it is now 29 months, he has the real option of return to Somalia with the Facilitated Returns Scheme. This option should be further explained to the subject”. Furthermore, the form from December 2010 indicated that the applicant “could minimise his time in detention by withdrawing [the application to the ECHR] and taking up FRS which is offered each month” and that he could “end his detention by volunteering to return (with or without FRS) at any time”. 11. Applications for bail were refused on 9 November 2009, 21 April 2010 and 14 July 2010 as the Immigration Judges were not satisfied that the applicant would answer to any conditions set. On 9 November 2009 the Immigration Judge further noted that although the applicant had been in detention for a lengthy period, “the most recent period of detention is on account of delays with his own application to the European Court of Human Rights”. 12. The applicant made further representations against removal on 10 June 2010. Those representations were treated as an application for revocation of the deportation order, but on 17 November 2010 the Secretary of State refused to revoke the order. However, following an appeal by the applicant, the Secretary of State withdrew the refusal decision on 12 July 2011. 13. On 19 November 2010 the applicant filed a claim for judicial review, contending that his ongoing detention was unlawful. Permission was granted on 17 June 2011 but a further application for bail was refused. On 13 July 2011, some two weeks after the Court ruled in Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom (nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011), the applicant was granted bail. 14. A hearing took place on 7 October 2011. Pursuant to the principles set down by the High Court in R. v. Durham Prison Governor ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 (see section on domestic law below), the Secretary of State cannot lawfully detain a person pending removal for longer than a reasonable period and, if it becomes apparent that the deportation cannot be effected within a reasonable period, the detention will become unlawful even if the reasonable period has not yet expired. The applicant claimed that his detention was in breach of the principles (a) on or after 16 June 2009 when the Court granted an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; (b) on or immediately after 16 June 2010 when he applied to revoke the deportation order; or (c) at all points after the revocation refusal on 17 November 2010. 15. In a judgment dated 14 November 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the claim. It noted that in deciding whether or not there was a realistic prospect that deportation would take place within a reasonable time, the risk of absconding or re-offending were “of paramount importance” but neither risk could be regarded as a “trump card”. Moreover, the fact that the period of detention occurred while the applicant was pursuing an appeal or comparable judicial process would also be a highly relevant factor, especially if there was a risk of absconding or reoffending. 16. The court noted that the applicant in the present case had six convictions for absconding and the Immigration Judges had consistently concluded that he was a significant abscond risk. It agreed with the Immigration Judges and also concluded that the risk was plainly substantial on the evidence available. Equally, the court took into account the fact that the applicant had family in the country at the times he absconded and therefore, contrary to his assertions, their presence did not remove the risk of absconding. Likewise, the Secretary of State’s detention reviews had characterised the risk of the applicant reoffending as “high”. The court further noted that the applicant’s offences became less serious and more intermittent as time went on. However, the fact remained that while he was free he was committing offences of such seriousness as to require him to be imprisoned, including robbery and public order offences. The court also considered whether alternatives to detention could be used such as electronic tagging, monitoring by telephone and regular reporting. However, given the applicant’s history of absconding, it concluded that the alternatives would not have been sufficient and there was an absence of adequate assurances from the applicant. 17. At the time the Administrative Court noted that the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, was awaiting a lead judgment on returns to Mogadishu (Sufi and Elmi, cited above) and it was clear that there would be no resolution of the applicant’s claim - and the interim measure would therefore not be lifted - before that judgment was handed down. However, the Administrative Court observed that at the time the interim measure was indicated, there was uncertainty about when that judgment could be expected. Moreover, while the applicants in Sufi and Elmi would have had a reasonable to good prospect of success, a positive outcome had not been inevitable. Consequently, the Administrative Court did not accept that there was not, at the time the interim measure was indicated, a realistic prospect of removing the applicant within a reasonable time. 18. Furthermore, the court did not accept that by the time of the applicant’s application for a revocation order, a reasonable period had already expired or that there was no realistic prospect of deportation within a reasonable time. In addition, it observed that the Secretary of State had been entitled to take two weeks to consider the applicant’s personal situation in light of the judgment in Sufi and Elmi. It therefore did not consider his continued detention up to 13 July 2011 to be unlawful. 19. The applicant was granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. On appeal, he restated his arguments concerning the Hardial Singh principles which had been advanced in the court below. In addition, he submitted that the detention was vitiated by two public law errors that bore directly on the decision to detain: first, following the indication of the interim measure the Secretary of State had failed to take any reasonable steps to acquaint herself with when it might be lifted; and secondly, that the detention was maintained on the unlawful basis that the applicant could reduce the length of time in detention by withdrawing his application to the Court and returning voluntarily to Somalia. Finally, the applicant argued that his detention was in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. 20. In its judgment of 20 October 2012, tthe applicant’s appeal against deportation as well as three separate bail applications had been rejected by immigration judges, as well as the broader context in relation to the on-going litigation concerning removals to Somalia both before the domestic courts and tribunals as well as before this Court (see §§ 28 to 32). It took into consideration the fact that the Rule 39 measure applied in the applicant’s case did not involve any specific assessment of risk towards him by this Court, since at the material time this Court had adopted a fact-insensitive approach towards Rule 39 measures in respect of removals to Somalia, and noted the consequence that from October 2008 this Court had adjourned 116 applications concerning removal to Somalia. It also took account of correspondence between the Government and the registry of this Court from which it was clear that from April 2009 the Court would be granting a fact-insensitive Rule 39 measure to any applicant with removal directions to Mogadishu as well as the separate correspondence between the Government and this Court concerning the progress of Sufi and Elmi, cited above and the linked domestic case law. 21. With regard to the Hardial Singh ground, the Court of Appeal stated that there could be a realistic prospect of success without it being possible to specify or predict the date by which, or the period in which, removal can reasonably be expected to occur. It accepted that at the time of receipt of the Rule 39 measure in the applicant’s case, although it was not possible to say when the proceedings before the Court would be concluded, there was nonetheless a reasonable prospect of their being concluded and of removal being effected within a reasonable time. Likewise, the Court of Appeal saw no reason to differ from the overall conclusion of the lower court on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention at the time of the application for revocation of the deportation order or after the judgment in Sufi and Elmi was handed down. Lord Justice Elias dissented on one point only: acknowledging that “there is no one right answer to the question what is a reasonable period”, he believed that the period of two weeks which elapsed following the judgment in Sufi and Elmi before the applicant was released from detention was not reasonable in all the circumstances. 22. With regard to the second ground of appeal, the court accepted that if the applicant were able to show that the decisions to maintain his detention were vitiated by public law he would succeed in establishing that the detention was unlawful and would have a claim of false imprisonment. However, the Court of Appeal found that although some of the passages in the review forms were not very happily expressed, they did not involve any legal error. Moreover, as the same conclusion was reached regardless of whether or not reference was made to the question of voluntary return, it appeared that the applicant’s refusal of this offer played no material part in the assessment of whether detention should be maintained. 23. Finally, the court found that Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention added nothing of substance in the present case. In reaching this conclusion, it rejected the applicant’s assertion that Mikolenko v. Estonia, no. 10664/05, 8 October 2009 was authority for the proposition that the lack of a realistic prospect of deportation within a defined period rendered detention under Article 5 § 1(f) unlawful. 24. The Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal on 26 March 2013.