Claimant

Ibukun Adebowale Adegboyega, a Nigerian national, entered the UK in June 2015 with an EEA family permit as the spouse of an EEA national (Romanian wife).

Detention

The claimant was unlawfully detained at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre for 88 days between April 28, 2017, and July 24, 2017. His detention was based on the defendant’s erroneous conclusion that he had no right to reside in the UK, despite sufficient evidence of his lawful status under the EEA Regulations.

Incidents during Detention

The claimant experienced harsh and degrading conditions, including mistreatment and threats of deportation. On June 5, 2017, he also suffered an incident of trespass to his person.

The Claimant sought damages for:

1. Unlawful detention at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre for 88 days from April 28, 2017, to July 24, 2017.
2. Trespass to the person on June 5, 2017.
3. Violation of rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) during the period of unlawful detention.
4. Psychiatric injury due to unlawful detention.
5. Breach of rights under Directive 2004/38/EC and the European Economic Area Regulations 2006.
6. Violation of rights under Article 8 ECHR.
   

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed the following key issues:

• The amount of basic damages for unlawful detention.
• Entitlement to and amount of aggravated and exemplary damages for unlawful detention.
• Determination of damages for trespass to the person.
• Violation of Article 3 ECHR and corresponding damages.
• Psychiatric injury sustained and related damages.
• Damages for breach of EEA rights, including loss of earnings and other heads of loss.
• Entitlement to and amount of aggravated and exemplary damages for breach of EEA rights.
• Entitlement to damages for the violation of Article 8 ECHR.
• Admissibility of Brook House Inquiry Report.

1. Unlawful Detention

Legal Principles Applied

• The court referenced Thompson v Commissioner of Police [1998] QB 498, which established guidelines for compensatory damages in cases of false imprisonment, emphasizing compensation for initial shock, loss of liberty, and any associated distress.
• MK (Algeria) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 980 and AXD v The Home Office [2016] EWHC 1617 (QB) were also cited, which underscore that damages should be tapered over time, but with sensitivity to the specific facts of each case.
• In R (Diop) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 3420 (Admin), the court considered the aggravating factors of the detention conditions and ongoing threat of deportation, which may justify higher damages.

Findings

• The claimant was unlawfully detained for 88 days due to the defendant’s failure to appropriately recognise his lawful right to reside in the UK as the spouse of an EEA national. The detention was characterized by severe and inhumane conditions at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre, including mistreatment and threats of deportation.
• The court found that the claimant’s detention was not only unlawful but conducted in an oppressive and negligent manner, with the defendant failing to consider relevant evidence of the claimant’s rights under EEA law.

Damages Awarded

• Basic Award for Wrongful Detention: £35,000, accounting for the initial shock and sustained psychological distress throughout the detention period due to oppressive conditions and threat of deportation.
• Aggravated Damages: £15,000, awarded due to the high-handed, negligent, and oppressive conduct of the defendant, which exacerbated the claimant’s psychological harm.
• Exemplary Damages: £25,000 awarded to punish the defendant’s particularly egregious conduct.

2. Trespass to the Person:

Legal Principles Applied:

• Trespass to the person compensates for any physical or psychological harm directly resulting from unlawful or unauthorized contact or actions by the defendant.

Findings:

• On June 5, 2017, the claimant was subjected to an incident of trespass involving physical contact that was not legally justified, contributing to his distress and psychological impact.

Damages Awarded:

• Trespass to the Person: £250, reflecting the physical and emotional harm caused by the incident.

3. Violation of Article 3 ECHR (Inhumane or Degrading Treatment):

Legal Principles Applied:

• Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits torture and inhumane or degrading treatment. Damages for a violation of Article 3 focus on compensating for the harm and indignity suffered due to such treatment.

Findings:

• The conditions and treatment the claimant endured at Brook House met the threshold for inhumane or degrading treatment under Article 3, significantly impacting his mental health and sense of dignity.

Damages Awarded:

• Violation of Article 3 ECHR: £26,000, considering the egregious conditions of detention and the psychological impact on the claimant.

4. Psychiatric Injury:

Legal Principles Applied:

• Compensation for psychiatric injury is based on the extent of the mental health impact resulting from the defendant’s wrongful actions, following personal injury law principles.

Findings:

• Expert psychiatric evidence indicated that the claimant suffered significant and enduring psychological harm due to his wrongful detention and the associated conditions at Brook House. Both the claimant’s and the defendant’s experts agreed on the severe impact of the prolonged detention and threat of deportation on the claimant’s mental health.

Damages Awarded:

• Psychiatric Injury: £25,000, awarded for the severity and lasting nature of the claimant’s psychological harm.
• Cost of CBT treatment for PTSD: £4,000

5. Breach of EEA Regulations and Loss of Earnings:

Legal Principles Applied:

• EEA rights protect the freedom to reside and work within EU member states. Compensation is warranted for breaches that restrict these rights, including loss of earnings and interference with lawful status.

Findings:

• The defendant breached the claimant’s EEA rights by failing to recognize his lawful status and improperly restricting his ability to work. This breach directly led to a significant loss of earnings and other economic disadvantages.

Damages Awarded:

• Loss of Earnings: £38,955, compensating for the economic impact of the claimant’s inability to work during the period of wrongful detention.
• Exemplary: £30,000
• Aggravated: Nil

6. Violation of Article 8 ECHR (Right to Private and Family Life):

Legal Principles Applied:

• Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life. Damages are awarded for unjustified interference with these rights, reflecting the personal and familial impacts of such violations.

Findings:

• The claimant’s Article 8 rights were violated due to the interference with his ability to maintain his personal and family life while residing in the UK, as well as the disruptions caused by the unlawful detention.

7. Brook House Inquiry Report:

Findings:

• The Brook House Inquiry was initiated following a BBC Panorama investigation that revealed abusive, violent, and degrading conditions at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre. The Inquiry conducted a thorough examination, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, and concluded that the conditions were systemic and severely impacted the detainees' welfare.
• The report identified failures in management, staff conduct, and oversight, leading to a hostile environment for detainees, including the claimant.

Admissibility Issues:

• The defendant initially sought to rely on the Brook House Inquiry report, arguing it was relevant to the claimant’s Article 3 claims. However, during the trial, the defendant opposed its admissibility, arguing that the report’s findings were hearsay and had not been tested in cross-examination.
• The claimant argued that the report was highly relevant due to its exhaustive investigation into the conditions and treatment at Brook House.

Court’s Findings on Admissibility:

• The court allowed the Brook House Inquiry report to be admitted under Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995, considering the depth and breadth of the Inquiry’s investigation, which could not be replicated in the trial.
• The court found that while the Inquiry did not provide a traditional adversarial setting, the evidence presented was detailed, extensive, and credible. The court noted the government’s acceptance of the broad thrust of the Inquiry’s findings in its response, which added weight to the report’s conclusions about the claimant’s conditions of detention.
• The court concluded that the report’s findings were highly relevant to assessing the claimant’s damages, particularly concerning the systemic issues at Brook House and their impact on the claimant’s treatment.

Summary of Total Awards:

i) Unlawful detention:  

  a) Compensatory (basic) £35,000

  b) Exemplary                 £25,000

  c) Aggravated         £15,000

ii) Trespass to the person         £250

iii) Article 3 ECHR         £26,000

iv) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder £25,000

v) Cost of CBT treatment for PTSD         £4,000

vi) Loss of EEA rights:  

  a) Loss of earnings £38,955

  b) Exemplary                 £30,000

  c) Aggravated         £ nil

vii) Interest on loss of earnings         £4,790.24

viii) Article 8 ECHR        £ nil

  Total =           £203,995.24

Press Coverage

BBC report

Barry and District News

Channel 4 News Report

Blog By Alex Goodman

Resources

The Brook House Inquiry Report – Volume 1

The Brook House Inquiry Report – Volume 2

The Brook House Inquiry Report – Volume 3

https://brookhouseinquiry.org.uk/