In CHK v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court of Appeal delivered a clear and robust reminder of the constitutional purpose of applications for a writ of habeas corpus, and where they are (or are not) appropriate.
The key issue in dispute was whether CHK, a Brazilian national and “foreign criminal” under the UK Borders Act 2007, subject to a deportation order and on immigration bail, (with reporting and residence conditions imposed) could invoke habeas corpus on the basis that those restrictions amount to detention.
CHK applied for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the cumulative effect of long-term reporting requirements, residence conditions, inability to travel internationally, and the ongoing deportation order amounted to a sufficient restraint on liberty to justify a writ of habeas corpus.
Emma Christie settled written representations on behalf of the Respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, before the Administrative Court, resulting in the Appellant’s application being refused on the papers.
CHK exercised an automatic right of appeal under s.15 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Emma Christie was led by Michael Armitage in the Court of Appeal, representing the successful Secretary of State.
The Court of Appeal (Zacaroli LJ giving the lead judgment, with Peter Jackson and Lewis LJJ concurring) dismissed the appeal in firm terms.
The Court reaffirmed that habeas corpus is a remedy of the “highest constitutional importance”, designed to secure release from unlawful detention, and that whilst exceptionally restrictive bail conditions might, in principle, amount to detention, the threshold is high, and the conditions in this matter fell “far short” of detention or a sufficiently significant curtailment of liberty.
The Court also relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s guidance in The Father v Worcestershire County Council, underlining that habeas corpus cannot be used as a vehicle to sidestep the structured framework of judicial review.
The judgment can be viewed here.
Further information
For more information from the public-law team, contact clerks@36public.co.uk
Involving Emma Christie
