R (Adegun) v SSHD (2019) EWHC 22 (Admin): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Summary="There are two bases of challenge to Mr Adegun's detention which, in broad outline, are as follows. ... There is first an issue, which I shall call the "rule 34 issue", as to whether Mr Adegun declined a medical examination pursuant to rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules when he was taken into detention. ... The second issue I shall call the "paragraph 55.10 issue". It arises because there is evidence, not disputed by the Secretary of State, that Mr Adegun was suffering from a mental health condition which was not recognised by the Home Office until some time after his admission into detention and was not treated with medication until 19 January 2016. ... I therefore propose to award nominal damages in respect of the early period of Mr Adegun's detention and substantial damages in respect of 40 days' detention." | |Summary="There are two bases of challenge to Mr Adegun's detention which, in broad outline, are as follows. ... There is first an issue, which I shall call the "rule 34 issue", as to whether Mr Adegun declined a medical examination pursuant to rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules when he was taken into detention. ... The second issue I shall call the "paragraph 55.10 issue". It arises because there is evidence, not disputed by the Secretary of State, that Mr Adegun was suffering from a mental health condition which was not recognised by the Home Office until some time after his admission into detention and was not treated with medication until 19 January 2016. ... I therefore propose to award nominal damages in respect of the early period of Mr Adegun's detention and substantial damages in respect of 40 days' detention." | ||
|Subject=Repatriation cases | |Subject=Repatriation cases | ||
|NCN=[2019 EWHC 22 (Admin) | |NCN=[2019] EWHC 22 (Admin) | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 17:27, 13 January 2019
"There are two bases of challenge to Mr Adegun's detention which, in broad outline, are as follows. ... There is first an issue, which I shall call the "rule 34 issue", as to whether Mr Adegun declined a medical examination pursuant to rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules when he was taken into detention. ... The second issue I shall call the "paragraph 55.10 issue". It arises because there is evidence, not disputed by the Secretary of State, that Mr Adegun was suffering from a mental health condition which was not recognised by the Home Office until some time after his admission into detention and was not treated with medication until 19 January 2016. ... I therefore propose to award nominal damages in respect of the early period of Mr Adegun's detention and substantial damages in respect of 40 days' detention."
Full judgment: BAILII
Subject(s):
- Repatriation cases🔍 See Repatriation for background information
Citation number(s):
What links here:Published: 12/1/19 22:58
Cached: 2025-08-27 10:14:05
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: