High Court scrutinises prolonged immigration detention amid mental health concerns

On 26 August 2025, the High Court delivered a significant judgement scrutinising the prolonged detention of a Nigerian asylum seeker, referred to as "BRO", by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The ruling examined complex interactions between immigration law and mental health considerations, raising important questions about detention procedures and the treatment of vulnerable individuals facing deportation.

BRO, who sought asylum in the UK in 2021, was detained under immigration powers following a criminal conviction in Scotland. The case gained urgency when the court convened an expedited hearing regarding his application for an interim order. His legal representatives contended that continued detention was unwarranted, particularly given his diagnosed mental health conditions, including paranoid schizophrenia and anti-social personality disorder.

The court assessed whether BRO possessed reasonable grounds for judicial review and evaluated the legality of his ongoing detention. Whilst the Secretary of State initially maintained that detention remained justified to facilitate deportation, critical questions emerged regarding compatibility with the claimant's rights under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards against arbitrary detention.

The judgement focused significantly on how detention conditions affect vulnerable individuals within immigration law frameworks. It highlighted ethical considerations surrounding the treatment of persons whose mental health may deteriorate through continued confinement. The court found sufficient evidence suggesting BRO's mental health had worsened during detention, raising serious concerns about the appropriateness of his continued confinement.

The judge granted BRO permission to apply for judicial review on multiple grounds, including assertions that detention had not followed necessary legal and procedural frameworks. The ruling emphasised the importance of Home Office diligence when managing cases involving individuals with complex mental health challenges.

Legal considerations also emerged regarding BRO's access to suitable post-detention accommodation. Despite being granted conditional bail, he remained imprisoned due to lack of appropriate housing. The court noted that release arrangements required coordination between various agencies to ensure compliance with his mental health needs whilst adhering to conditions set by the Scottish court regarding his licence release.

After 15 weeks since conditional bail was granted, the overarching issue became inadequate accommodation provision, which prevented BRO's release from detention. The judgement underscored the necessity for clarity and cooperation amongst agencies providing support and accommodation to prevent further rights violations during complex legal processes.

The case highlighted tensions between ensuring public safety and respecting individual rights, particularly where mental health considerations arise. A critical examination of detention duration emerged, with the court questioning whether prolonged confinement served legitimate immigration purposes when suitable accommodation remained unavailable.

The judgement noted procedural deficiencies in the detention review process, emphasising that regular reassessment of detention necessity becomes paramount when dealing with vulnerable individuals. The court recognised that mental health deterioration during detention could render continued confinement disproportionate and potentially unlawful.

BRO's case demonstrates the complex interplay between criminal justice outcomes, immigration enforcement, and human rights obligations. The requirement for multi-agency coordination becomes particularly acute when individuals possess both mental health needs and immigration status complexities.

The ruling establishes important precedents regarding the treatment of mentally vulnerable immigration detainees. It reinforces obligations to conduct thorough, regular reviews of detention necessity and ensure appropriate accommodation exists before detention can lawfully continue. The judgement may influence broader immigration detention policies, potentially requiring enhanced safeguards for vulnerable individuals.

This decision represents a critical examination of current immigration detention practices, emphasising that procedural compliance alone cannot justify continued confinement where individual circumstances render detention inappropriate. The case underscores evolving judicial attitudes towards balancing immigration enforcement with human rights protections, particularly concerning mental health considerations within the detention framework.