The Queen (on the application of Bowen and Stanton) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 2057 (Admin)

The Claimants, Mr Bowen and Mr Stanton, were both convicted of serious offences and sentenced to indeterminate sentences. Both claimants had served the minimum period and were eligible for parole. The Parole Board then reviewed their cases and recommended release to approved premises. Owing to demand for such accommodation, each claimant had to wait several months to be released. They challenged this delay and argued that their detention was arbitrary and unjustified. The court held that there was no breach of public duty akin to James. The defendant did not breach the claimant’s rights under Article 5 ECHR or s.28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. This was later upheld by the Court of Appeal which rejected the appeal stating that it was not the executive who determined when the appellants’ detention should end, but they could be released only with regard to the protection of the public and that they remained in custody “under their original sentences”. Unfortunately, the UK Supreme Court rejected the claimant’s application for permission to appeal.

AHM v. SSHD

The claimant remained in the immigration detention for an excessive period. During this period the claimant rejected the attempts of the SSHD to facilitate an application for an emergency travel document and made repeated, although unsuccessful, asylum applications. The claimant had been diagnosed with a mental health condition which worsened during the period of immigration detention and led to the loss of capacity shortly after his release. The court accepted that approximately five months of the immigration detention was unlawful and awarded £10,000 of damages.

The claimant was placed in a nursing home where his personal liberty was restricted. He was not given adequate mobility aids, access to TV, reading materials etc. The claimant was assaulted by another resident but a doctor and/or the police were not called. The incident was not recorded. The claimant’s mobility and risk of falls had not been assessed properly and his long history of falls and injuries was disregarded. When the claimant issued proceedings the defendant complied with their duties in full and the claim was settled by consent.

A man involved in a road traffic accident suffered the hand and hip injuries. Owing to the further developments it was identified that the claimant developed a psychological injury. The defendant sought to minimise the value of the injury and offered to settle the claim first for £50,000 and later for £100,000. After negotiation, the defendant agreed that the appropriate amount of damages should be £230,000.

This was a claim based on the employer’s liability for injury at work. SK worked on a cruise ship in the area exposed to sea spray and, sometimes, rain. He was not given protective non-slip footwear despite repeated requests. One day when the sea was rough, SK fell down the stairs and injured his back. The claim was settled for £42,000.