header-logo header-logo

13 October 2017
Issue: 7765 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Government excluding adults at risk

Ruling means 100s of people may have been kept in unlawful detention

Home Office guidance on ‘adults at risk’ unlawfully excludes victims of torture at the hands of non-state actors, the High Court has held.

Ruling in Medical Justice v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2461 (Admin), Mr Justice Ouseley held that the statutory guidance ‘Adults at risk in immigration detention’ used an unlawfully restrictive definition of ‘torture’. Consequently, the guidance saved victims of state-sponsored torture from being held in immigration detention but failed to protect victims of torture by traffickers, terrorists and other groups.

Ouseley J held the narrowing of the definition of torture lacked ’rational or evidence base’. He said the definition used in the guidance ‘would require medical practitioners to reach conclusions on political issues which they cannot rationally be asked to reach’.

Jed Pennington, solicitor at Bhatt Murphy, who acted for Medical Justice and two of the detainees, said: ‘It is shameful that the Home Office reintroduced a definition of torture that the High Court had already thrown out under the guise of a policy that is supposed to be more protective of vulnerable detainees. Adults at risk is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced with a framework that genuinely protects the vulnerable with, as a minimum, a prohibition on the detention of all victims of torture or trauma.’

The seven detainees who, along with the charity Medical Justice, challenged the guidance included two women who suffered sexual violence, rape and human trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, said: ‘It is a damning indictment of our government that this sickening policy ever saw the light of day. In the UK, in 2017, the Home Secretary ignored medical expertise, basic humanity and the law to sign off a barbaric policy to lock up traumatised torture survivors.’

The ruling means hundreds of people may have been unlawfully detained—Medical Justice says it receives more than 1,000 referrals from among about 30,000 people held each year in immigration detention.

Issue: 7765 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll