No-Deportations - Residence Papers for All
 
About No-Deportations
           

No-Deportations






The Butchers Apron


        Nellie de jongh


Archives



Ruhul Anam Released after Four Years, Two Months in Detention

It's Not the Size of the Detainee in the Fight, but the Size of the Fight in the Detainee

Ruhul Anam walked through the gates of Colnbrook IRC @ 17:30 hrs yesterday after four years and two months in immigration detention. He remains in the UK not through the grace of Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson former Home Secretaries or Theresa May the present, who all tried to deport him and Theresa May is still at it.

He remains in the UK because he fought from day one of his immigration detention, which began on the 14th April 2008. [This was after a period in prison; Ruhul had an extensive criminal history with 41, most of them relatively minor offences resulting in 26 convictions. All of these matters were dealt with in magistrate's courts except for the last offence, which was dealt with by a Crown Court the court imposed a sentence of four years. All of his past convictions, other than the index offences, had become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974]

Directions were set for Ruhul's removal on 24 April 2008 he was taken onto the plane by escorts, Ruhul became disruptive and was removed from the plane and returned to detention.

And so began a long legal battle between Ruhul and UKBA not because at the outset he had good legal teams he didn't. But because Ruhul was determined that the UK was his home and where he was going to stay, he came to the UK in 1984.

From the moment detainees were given access to the Internet, Ruhul began to educate himself in immigration law and became a lay expert. He was able to instruct his solicitors (and sacked at least two of them) on what matters needed emphasis. He not only advised on his own case but began to help other detainees with out legal representation take their cases to appeal.

Ruhul brought proceedings more than 3 years ago in order to challenge his detention. He relied upon the Hardial Singh principles, and general principles of public law - among them a principle that published policy must be complied with in the absence of good reason not to do so - and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that he Secretary of State had unlawfully failed to consider the implications for Mr Anam of departmental policy as regards detention of those who are mentally ill.

And Article 5 became the crux of the matter, UKBA ignored a professional report that Ruhul had problems that could not be treated in a detention environment and further that continuing detention only exacerbated the problem.

Challenges to his detention in previous years, even though Immigration judges found he was unlawfully detained, did not bring release from detention. It was not until a hearing last month 17/18 May, that he finally got victory, though he had to remain in detention until the judgement was handed down this week.

On Wednesday 27th June Mr. Justice Walker in the High Court said:

1) While Mr Anam's detention was unlawful until the decision was taken on 14 August 2009 to continue detention, as regards the period prior to that decision Mr Anam is entitled to no more than nominal damages because during that period those responsible could and would have taken a lawful decision to detain him.

2) Following the decision taken on 14 August 2009 Mr Anam's detention remained unlawful, as neither that decision nor subsequent decisions took account of Professor Katona's *second report dated 22 July 2009, but as regards the period prior to close of business on Thursday 11 February 2010 Mr Anam is entitled to no more than nominal damages because during that period those responsible could and would have taken a lawful decision to detain him.

3) From close of business on Thursday 11 February 2010 Mr Anam's detention was unlawful because it failed to comply with Hardial Singh principles.

4) Subject to any development warranting the contrary conclusion, Mr Anam is now entitled to his liberty.

5) Mr Anam is entitled to substantial damages for his detention from close of business on Thursday 11 February 2010 onwards.

At the hearing on the 17/18th May, Ruhul was represented by Ian Macdonald QC and Ranjiv Khubber, instructed by Wilson Solicitors, instructed by Ruhul Anam.

Vicious in defeat UKBA refused to let Ruhul have unrestricted freedom, they insisted and the Judge allowed it, he will be fitted with a tag, at the moment he is sitting in his mothers house, waiting for Serco to come and fit the tag and will have to report once a week.

Ruhul now has to win his asylum claim, which will be heard next week on the 4/5th July.

Once he has recuperated from his unlawful incarceration, Ruhul will publish his own personal view of what happened.

If you are in contact with anyone in detention who has mental problems the judgement is essential reading, a copy is available from No-Deportations.

Messages of congratulations can be sent direct to Ruhul: ruhul_99@live.co.uk

Extracts from the judgement
Accordingly I conclude that from close of business on Thursday 11 February 2010 onwards Mr Anam's continued detention was unlawful not only because there was a failure to give consideration to Professor Katona's 22 July 2009 report but also because detention was in breach of Hardial Singh principles. From that time onwards, even if a lawful approach had been taken to Mr Anam's mental health problems, he could not lawfully have been detained without offering release on appropriate conditions, and there is no reason to doubt that if offered appropriate conditions Mr Anam would have accepted them. He is therefore entitled to substantial damages for false imprisonment for the period from mid-January onwards.

Professor Katona diagnosed Ruhul as suffering from a complex set of persecutory beliefs. In summary he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which, to some extent, was kept under control as a result of the anti-psychotic medication the appellant was taking. Most of his previous offences took place when he was either not being treated with such medication or was non-compliant with the medication prescribed for him.

. . . . during the period to 9 September 2008 the secretary of state had acted unlawfully by maintaining an unpublished policy which, contrary to the published departmental policy, involved a "near blanket ban" on the release of foreign nationals who had been imprisoned in this country and who were to be deported. Mr Macdonald submits that the "near blanket ban" must have applied in Mr Anam's case just as much as it did in other cases during the period to 9 September 2008. [The Home Office did not seek to controvert this submission.]

Chapter 55 "Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. Provides that persons suffering from mental illness should be detained under immigration powers only in "very exceptional circumstances". Cranston J held that it was for the court objectively to determine what this meant. He concluded that Mr Anam's mental health issues were such that the policy in this regard was engaged.

On 30 April 2008 removal directions with escorts were re-set for 8 May 2008. On 2 May 2008 Mr Anam's representatives submitted an out of time appeal and representations on his behalf. On 7 May 2008 Mr Anam lodged an application for asylum, with the result that removal directions were cancelled. On 8 May 2008 the AIT advised that the "out of time" appeal was to proceed.

Nursing assessments on 25 April and 1 May 2008 are described in paragraph 19 of Cranston J's judgment. Neither side disagreed with this description, which was as follows:

A nursing assessment at the time of his arrival at a detention centre on the 25th April 2008 briefly reports that he was in touch with a psychiatric hospital and that he appeared paranoid. Sharing a room made him feel stressed. There was a medical health needs assessment on the 1st of May 2008 by a community psychiatric nurse which recorded that the claimant was not complaining of any psychiatric condition and had refused to offer details of his past involvement with or treatment by psychiatric services. Dr Patel's report was available, as were the short reports from Tony Adams. The report writer was not able to perform the full medical health assessment because of the claimant's reluctance to engage. Consequently he was unsure whether the claimant was suffering with a mental health problem. During the session the report writer could not detect any significant levels of emotional disturbance other than being angry at his present situation and facing the possibility of being returned to Bangladesh. The claimant did not complain of any psychiatric condition. There was some uncertainty about his diagnosis.

On 24 July 2008 Mr Anam's solicitors lodged further representations, and enclosed a report by Dr Katona dated 19 July 2008. That report was summarised by Cranston J at paragraph 14 of his judgment:

14. Dr Katona's report of the 19th July 2008 was prepared for the purposes of the hearing before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Dr Katona agreed with Dr Patel's diagnosis that the claimant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. His condition was likely to have deteriorated in recent times - he had been in immigration detention for some 2 to 3 months - because of his reluctance to take anti-psychotic medication. The claimant informed Dr Katona that he was prepared to restart on the medication although he had some concerns that it might make him feel "lumbified". Dr Katona opined that the claimant's condition was most likely to improve if he restarted medication and was placed in a supportive environment, with close mental health monitoring. This could initially be in a psychiatric inpatient setting, but it might also be possible to provide sufficient monitoring in the community if he also had the benefit of family support. It was unlikely that his mental health needs would be met on return to Bangladesh.

On 6 November 2008 Criminal Cases Directorate (CCD) had been notified that Mr Anam was due to be transferred to Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre, but he had refused to be transferred and force had to be used to restrain and transport him.

On 19 December 2008 CCD was notified that Mr Anam had refused to be relocated to the residential unit at Colnbrook IRC and was instead placed in the short term boarding facility. It was said that his disruption had continued and that he was relocated to the Vulnerable Persons Unit on 31 December 2008 as he refused to share a room.

Mr Anam's complaint about not being allocated a single room on arrival at Colnbrook was ultimately upheld by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman in July 2009.

On the 17th February 2009, Ruhul acting on his own behalf submitted a Judicial Review and was granted the review.

* 101. Professor Katona's second report contained important features that needed to be addressed when considering whether to maintain detention. In particular, it said:

1) Mr Anam was taking his anti-psychotic medication and his delusional beliefs were less prominent.

2) There was another change from the position in July 2008 in that Mr Anam by July 2009 had quite prominent depressive symptoms, which were a reaction to his prolonged detention.

3) While Mr Anam was now on regular anti-psychotic medication, he was not receiving any psychological treatment and was not in a rehabilitative environment, both of which were key components of treatment in care of people with schizophrenia.

4) Professor Katona reiterated his recommendation for a supportive environment, and noted that family members had now expressed a willingness to provide such support.

5) In Professor Katona's view continued immigration detention was causing the claimant considerable stress, which was likely to worsen his psychotic and his depressive symptoms.

Last updated 29 June, 2012