header-logo header-logo

Phone & data seizure ruled unlawful

31 March 2022
Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail
The Home Secretary unlawfully seized more than 2000 mobile phones from asylum seekers and extracted vast amounts of data, the High Court has held

The three claimants arrived on small boats between April and September 2020. They were immediately searched by immigration officers, had their mobile phones seized and retained and were ordered to provide their PIN under threat of criminal penalties. This was done as part of a blanket and unpublished Home Office policy.

The Home Secretary initially denied the policy existed but later admitted it did. She argued the Immigration Act 2016, s 48 empowered her to search arrivals, seize phones and extract data, but later conceded the policy was unlawful, and informed the court she self-referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office in July 2021 for breaching data protection law.

Ruling in R (HM) v Home Secretary [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin), Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Lane held the policy was unlawful and breached data protection and human rights laws (Art 8). They held s 48, Immigration Act 2016 could not be used to carry out personal searches, and also rejected Home Office arguments at trial that the phones had been seized under para 25B of Sched 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (items that could present a danger or assist a person to escape). They stopped short of ruling further on data protection issues since the Information Commissioner’s Office is now investigating the matter. A further hearing will now take place to decide remedies and consider breaches of the Home Secretary’s duty of candour.

Clare Jennings, director, Gold Jennings, representing HM, said: ‘But for this litigation the Home Secretary’s policies would have remained shrouded in secrecy, including the fact that for many months the entire contents of a person’s mobile phone―text messages, photographs, contacts etc―were being extracted and possibly shared with third parties.’

Daniel Carey, partner, Deighton Pierce Glynn, representing KH and MA, said: ‘All of this had real impacts on very vulnerable people, who lost touch with their families and couldn’t get their asylum documentation, while the phones languished on a shelf for many months, many which now cannot be returned.’
Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll