UK : Home Office slapped with over £200,000 Costs by High Court for Unlawful Detention, condemned for making False Statements
- Vineet Malik
- Feb 6
- 8 min read
By Vineet Malik | February 6, 2025 | India | @vineetmalik1
The Home Office after fighting a legal battle in the case “Adegboyega vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department” for more than eight years with a vulnerable individual has been finally convicted on several grounds in a landmark decision ruled by the Royal Courts of Justice/High Court (HC) on 28 January in London
In July, 2017 a Nigerian National Ibukun Adebowale Adegboyega was unlawfully imprisoned for more than 85 days by the Home Office at the Immigration Removal Centre, despite the fact that his stay in the United Kingdom (UK) was very much legitimate and within the purview of the UK Immigration Law.
Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2017
The then Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2017 was Rt Hon Amber Rudd. She was asked to resign after admitting that the Home Office set targets for deportations, although the accusations was later denied by her.
This judgment ruled by the High Court is still competent to haunt Rudd for the rest of her life even after she resigned in September, 2019.
Breach of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) by the UK
This matter not only highlights the gross misconduct of the Home Office but also proves wilful and deliberate disregard and breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.
Ironically, The UK played a vital role in the birth of the ECHR, with British lawyers integral to the drafting of the text and Winston Churchill a key early advocate.
ECHR Law
This law was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust in an attempt to protect the people from the State, make sure the atrocities committed would never be repeated and safeguard fundamental rights.
Observations made by the High Court
After scrutinising the victims’ bundle of documents running into more than 1300 pages, His Honour Judge (HHJ) Richard Roberts after hearing the matter on 16 December stated “I have found in my judgment in the assessment of damages trial that the Government legal department represented by the Home Office through its Solicitors - Mr. Bilal Rawat have throughout these proceedings made untrue and misleading statements and acted oppressively.
I accept the submission made by the victims’ Solicitor that the Defendant’s conduct takes this case outside the norm.”
Despite ruling an explicit order by the High Court in the interest of justice to pay damages to the victim', the Home Office not only refused to make the payment but had no explanation to furnish for its failure.
“I find that the Defendant has conducted the litigation in a high-handed and oppressive manner.
The contention of the Home Office about the victim’s unlawful stay in the UK as the spouse of the European Union (EU) national and victimised him as an overstayer and detaining him for almost three months was unlawful.”
Evidently, the Home Office despite being a wrongdoer, continued to haggle with the High Court in a shrewd manner to somehow pay less damages to the victim’.
“Six Officers rushed into Adegboyega’s prison cell and three surrounded his bed in personal protective equipment. One of which carried a shield and stood very close to the victim’ to prevent him from moving was unjustified because it was disproportionate, unnecessary and inappropriate. I accept that the Officers’ personal protective equipment and shield made the experience menacing and distressing.”
The Home Office opposed the victims’ bail application and made misleading submissions which led to the victims’ bail being refused by the Tribunal Judge Scott Baker.
The victim is currently taking prescription medication and continue to suffer from severe consequences with an ongoing impact on his daily life as per the Doctor’s report.
Furthermore, Judge Robin Purchas KC was misled by the Home Office that led to dismissal of victim’s plea to proceed with his judicial review (JR) claim. The victim was denied justice.
Only later, after knowing the truth, the Deputy High Court Judge Dinah Rose KC granted the victim’ permission to proceed with the JR claim along with the amended JR grounds.
The video evidence of victim’s unlawful arrest along with an incident of being breathalysed also in 2023 by British Police was reviewed and condemned by the High Court.
The argument is unprincipled and contradictory. I conclude that costs are not determined on the basis of winning every single point raised but should be judged on the basis of who is the ‘successful party’.”
While awarding additional costs against the Home Office, the HHJ said "the Home Office Secretary did not engage with Cogent and Evidence-based representations."
The High Court awarded damages to the victim’ along with interest to the tune of £2,03,995.24 to be paid by the Home Office latest by 11 February for the following violations :
Basic, aggravated and exemplary damages for unlawful detention – false imprisonment
Breach of Article 3 of ECHR
Loss of European Economic Area (EEA) Rights in-terms of loss of earnings and exemplary damages
Trespass to the person
Personal injuries
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) treatment
A distinguished civil rights activist from the London based international human rights organisation in an exclusive interview with The Revelation, on condition of anonymity says “The policies of the Home Office are governed by unethical and deceptive values that violates the principles of justice, equity and human rights.”
About Attorney Bilal Rawat engaged by the Home Office
The Revelation dug deeper by finding shocking facts about Rawat who appeared on behalf of the Home Office. His profile on the 5essex.co.uk website says
Bilal Rawat has recently been re-appointed to the Attorney General’s (A) Panel of Civil Counsel
Rawat acts for the Government departments such as the Police forces, Local authorities, and Quasi-public Cos. in public and civil law matters.
The Controversies surrounding Attorney Bilal Rawat
Rawat has been shrouded in a controversy for earning £22,03,633 in fees as a Jr. Counsel from the UK Government in 2009 in the wasteful ‘Bloody Sunday Inquiry’.
The exorbitant amount was paid for by the UK taxpayers. It was the longest and most expensive Inquiry running into total expenditure of over £190M from 1988 when it was initiated till the end of the Inquiry in 2010.
‘Bloody Sunday Inquiry’ | 'The Saville Inquiry'
Four decades ago, on 30 January, 1972 known as Bloody Sunday, 13 civil rights marchers were shot dead and 14 others were wounded by British Soldiers in Northern Ireland.
After 38 years later, on 15, June 2010 ‘The Bloody Sunday Inquiry’ chaired by the Law Lord, Lord Saville published its findings. The inquiry concluded that none of those killed or injured that day bear any responsibility for the shootings, all of them were innocent.
In response to questions about the ‘Bloody Sunday Inquiry’, Government officials were unable to explain why the cost was more than double the estimates given publicly.
A British journalist Peter Allan Oborne labelled the inquiry as ‘shambles’, estimating its final cost at more than £200M. The inquiry was shrouded by a controversy due to its prolonged timeline, mounting costs and questions regarding its relevance.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported that an initial investigation headed by late John Passmore Widgery and Baron Widgery shortly after the shootings was a deliberate cover-up to exonerate the guilty by means of a perfunctory investigation with ulterior motive.
The Shadow Secretary of Northern Ireland, Owen Paterson who was instrumental in asking the figures in Parliament called the spending to which Rawat benefited as ‘astonishing’.
More critics expressed outrage at what they branded a “waste of public money” and senior politicians reacted with anger at the breakdown of the Saville legal bills, branding the staggering sums outrageous and disgraceful.
MPs and peers from across the political spectrum in the UK raised concerns about what the inquiry will ultimately achieve, claiming the only people who will really benefit are the lawyers.
Andrew Philip, (not real name for fear of getting targeted) 52, employed with a Charity in London says “It is a disgrace what the Home Office has done with the Nigerian national. The conduct of the Home Office has been rightly condemned by the Royal Courts of Justice.
Also, unethical Attorney Bilal Rawat has brought shame to the legal profession. He should be black listed and suspended.
It appears there is an evil nexus between the Home Office and Attorney Rawat that defeats the core principle of humanity.”
Justice should be Seen to be Done
In the interest of justice, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) in England should initiate proceedings against Attorney Bilal Rawat through the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for prima-facie committing fraud with the High Court.
The question now arises, if the OSS will take any action against Rawat ?
If a legal professional signs a document, it is presumed that he fixes signatory with knowledge of contents. An Attorney signing cannot plead that he was unaware of the contents. Practitioners must realise that if they associate themselves with statements which they know to be dishonest and untruthful for the purpose of misleading the Court, then they should be punished.
An Attorney should be fair to ensure that justice is done.
While discharging duty to the Court, an Attorney should never knowingly be a party to any deception, design or fraud.
A point of well settled law must not be dragged into doubt solely with a view to confuse or mislead the Judge and thereby gain an undue advantage to the client to which he may not be entitled.
Professional misconduct is is gravest when it is a deliberate attempt at misleading the Court or an attempt at practicing deception or fraud on the Court.
An Attorney is expected to have higher standard of conduct with a special duty towards the Court in rendering assistance. It is because the Attorney has access to the public records and is also obliged to protect the public interest. That apart, he has a moral responsibility to the Court. When these values corrode, one can say "things fall apart".
Given the misconduct shown by Bilal before the High Court, he should be rebuked and fined to an extent of getting suspended or being struck off the roll for interfering with the administration of justice, demeaning the justice system and violating the professional conduct out of the duty owed to the Court.
Rawat refused to respond to two separate emails with a tough set of questions asked by The Revelation.
An email sent to the President, Law Society of England and Wales, Mr. Richard Atkinson by The Revelation on misconduct of the Home Office and its Solicitors before the High Court received a dodgy response : "We do not comment on individual cases."
The UK Government eroded domestic human rights protections and reneged on important international obligations : A comprehensive report prepared and released by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2024
With such repeated verdicts ruled against the UK Home Office has led to undermining the Constitutional role of the Courts that is further damaging its international reputation for victimising innocent individuals and subjecting them to inhumane behaviour with devastating impact on their wellbeing and mental health.
The High Court judgment in the matter of “Adegboyega vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department” dated 28 January, 2025 can be read here.
Comments