Confidentiality Breach in Immigration Removal Case

Introduction

The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Chamberlain, recently delivered a judgment addressing a significant procedural issue in immigration cases. The case concerned an application for interim relief to prevent the removal of Mr Ebou Jasseh, a Gambian national, from the United Kingdom. The judgment focused on the communication practices of the Government Legal Department (GLD) and their compliance with procedural rules.

Background

Mr Jasseh entered the UK in 2004 or 2005 and was convicted of rape in 2016, receiving a six-year prison sentence. A deportation order was issued against him, leading to multiple judicial review claims aimed at delaying his removal. All five claims filed between October and December 2024 were unsuccessful. A sixth claim was filed on 3 January 2025, with Mr Jasseh seeking interim relief to stay his removal scheduled for 9 January 2025.

Procedural Issue

The procedural issue arose from an email sent by a GLD lawyer to the Administrative Court on 7 January 2025. The email, marked "Strictly confidential," contained details about Mr Jasseh's removal flight and was not copied to him. The email's confidentiality was justified by a Home Office policy meant to prevent disruption to charter flights. However, the court found this practice contrary to CPR 39.8, which requires communications with the court to be shared with all parties unless a compelling reason exists.

Discussion

Mr Justice Chamberlain highlighted that CPR 39.8(1) mandates that any communication between a party and the court must be disclosed to the other party unless it is purely routine and administrative. The GLD's email contained substantive information and submissions about Mr Jasseh's past litigation, thus breaching this procedural rule. The court emphasised the importance of transparency and fairness, particularly in immigration cases where the stakes are high.

Implications

The judgment underscored the necessity for the GLD to review its communication practices to ensure compliance with CPR 39.8. It also clarified that while certain information, such as flight departure times, might be withheld for security reasons, this must be balanced against the duty of candour owed to the claimant. Future communications must clearly state if they are not being shared with the other party and provide a compelling reason for such an exception.

Conclusion

The court's decision serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles of natural justice and the right of parties to be informed of the case against them. It also highlights the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure fairness in judicial proceedings, especially in sensitive areas like immigration law.

Learn More

For more information on immigration law and procedural fairness, see BeCivil's guide to UK Immigration Law.

Copyright & permissions