header-logo header-logo

07 June 2023
Issue: 8028 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , National Health Service
printer mail-detail

Secret detentions at port ruled unlawful

A secret policy used by the home secretary to repeatedly stop and detain two mothers and their young children at port has been declared unlawful by the High Court.

The women, represented by Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, are foreign nationals with leave to remain in the UK, have children who were born in the UK, and have outstanding NHS debt dating back to a time when their immigration status meant they had to pay for medical treatment. The policy was uncovered through evidence gathered from charities and lawyers.

In R (MXK and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1272 (Admin), the court heard evidence gathered from charities and lawyers about an unpublished Home Office policy to detain at the border those with continuing leave to remain and NHS debt. Individuals were questioned about their debt for several hours. This was despite the fact the debt has no relevance to the individual’s re-entry to the UK.

The home secretary initially denied the policy existed, but later disclosed the policy during the course of the litigation, although she denied the policy should have been published.

Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain held the women and young children were falsely imprisoned by the home secretary without justification. He held the home secretary had breached her duty to consider the impact of the policy on protected groups, including women, who are known to be disproportionately affected by NHS charging.

Chamberlain J said: ‘The fact that the policy is unpublished supplies a further reason why it is unlawful.’

Janet Farrell, partner at Bhatt Murphy, said: ‘The detention of our clients was humiliating and distressing.

‘This judgment shows how vital it is that policies concerning the use of coercive powers such as detention are published so victims can hold the government to account in court in a meaningful way.’ 

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