Open justice | Let us know if you have a tribunal decision you would like to publish (see Re A)
Email updates | CPD scheme

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: Ward with intermittent RC cover | News

R (Adegun) v SSHD (2019) EWHC 22 (Admin): Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case
{{Case
|Date=2019/01/10
|NCN=[2019] EWHC 22 (Admin)
|NCN=[2019] EWHC 22 (Admin)
|Date=2019/01/10
|Sentence=Damages for unlawful immigration detention
|Subject=Repatriation cases
|Court=High Court
|Court=High Court
|Judges=Nicholas Paines
|Judges=Nicholas Paines
|Parties=Adegun, Secretary of State for the Home Department
|Sentence=Damages for unlawful immigration 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."
|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
|News=Yes
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2019/01/12 10:58:23 PM
|RSS pubdate=2019/01/12 10:58:23 PM

Revision as of 23:14, 24 February 2019

Damages for unlawful immigration detention "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."

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Date: 10/1/19🔍

Court: High Court🔍

Judge(s):

Parties:

  • Adegun🔍
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department🔍

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 12/1/19 22:58

Cached: 2025-06-24 06:51:46

Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=R_(Adegun)_v_SSHD_(2019)_EWHC_22_(Admin)&oldid=37853"