Our Sonali Naik KC, Irena Sabic KC and David Sellwood of the Garden Court Public Law Team represented AG’s estate and family, instructed by Bahar Ata and Oskar Butcher of Duncan Lewis Solicitors.
The below content has been reproduced from a Duncan Lewis press release.
After years of litigation, the Home Office have settled a claim for unlawful detention and deportation, brought by the legal team on behalf of the estate and surviving family members of a client (‘AG’) who was killed following their deportation.
AG, who had been in the UK for many years, was issued with a deportation order. The Home Secretary certified the case under section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘NIAA’), meaning that any appeal against the decision to deport could only be exercised after they were removed from the UK.
The client was detained under immigration powers for a period of just over 6 months before being deported. They lodged an out of country appeal from their country of origin, on the grounds that their deportation from the UK breached section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’).
AG was tragically killed less than five months after they were deported. They are survived by their immediate family, who remain in the UK.
AG’s family continued to pursue the appeal against deportation, arguing that the certificate under which they were deported from the UK was unlawful, as they could not have had a fair and effective appeal hearing from their country of origin, not least due to the prevailing conditions there. They also argued that removal breached the right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). However, the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) concluded that AG’s appeal had abated upon their death, a position subsequently endorsed by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
Seeking redress for AG’s estate and surviving family, the legal team brought a claim for unlawful detention and deportation, and breach of Article 8 ECHR, against the Home Office. It was argued that the certification of AG’s appeal under s94B NIAA was unlawful as it would not have been possible, at the time they were deported, to conduct a fair and effective appeal hearing from their country of origin. As a consequence, AG’s detention and deportation was unlawful. This is because the Home Office could not have lawfully detained AG without the s94B certificate, in the absence of which AG would have had a suspensive right of appeal, and the right to remain in the UK until their appeal was resolved.
The Home Office denies liability, but has agreed to settle the claim for a significant sum, which will go to AG’s estate and surviving family members.
