Ahmed Fadhil Taher -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Order)
Case number: AC-2025-LON-003763
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
29 October 2025
Before:
The Hon. Mr Justice Bright
Between:
The King
on the application of
Ahmed Fadhil Taher
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Order
On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and interim relief to stay the Defendant from removing him from the UK to France on 30 October 2025
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant
And upon hearing counsel for the Claimant and leading counsel for the Defendant
ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Bright:
- The application for an order staying removal from the UK to France is refused.
- The Defendant must provide a copy of the Rule 35(3) report and of the report of Dr Tisi to the French authorities, so as to be available to those responsible for receiving the Claimant in France before he arrives.
- The Claimant must lodge any draft amended grounds for claiming judicial review by 16:00 on 5 November 2025.
- The Defendant must file an acknowledgment of service and summary grounds by 16:00 on 11 November 2025.
- The papers are to be put before a judge to consider the application for permission to claim judicial review as soon as is practicable from 12 November 2025.
- Costs reserved.
REASONS
Serious issue to be tried
Ground 1: Procedural unfairness in negative NRM reasonable grounds decision
The reasons given for the NRM RG decision were (in essence) (i) lack of detail that would reasonably be expected and (ii) several minor inconsistencies. The Claimant says that the Defendant’s consideration applied too high a threshold, and contained no substantive evaluation of the evidence, and that the Claimant should have been given an opportunity to clarify/provide supplementary information.
The NRM RG decision is carefully set out and reasoned. I see no sign that too high
a threshold was applied. The evidence received was reviewed thoroughly, and the specific instances of lack of detail and inconsistencies were clearly identified. If the Claimant had been able to clarify/provide supplementary information I would expect this to have been provided now, but it has not.
The competent authority has this evening indicated that it has considered the additional evidence in Dr Tisi’s report and has reconfirmed its decision.
Ground 2: Failure to defer removal pending Medical Justice assessment and NRM reconsideration
The Medical Justice assessment has now been received, and the competent authority has re-confirmed the NRM decision, so this Ground falls away, in favour of Grounds 3 and 4.
Ground 3: Breach of Article 3 ECHR – risk of inhuman or degrading treatment
The Claimant previously received a Rule 35(3) report, assessing him as level 2. He has recently been assessed by Dr Tisi of Medical Justice as being emotionally traumatised by a serious assault in his home country, and a further assault in the course of his journey to the UK. Very recently, there was an episode of self-harm prior to a previous schedule removal (which would have been on 21 October 2025). Dr Tisi’s opinion is that the Claimant has significant symptoms of moderate depression and PTSD; that there is ongoing deterioration in his mental health, directly related to his ongoing detention; and that his vulnerability to self- harm/suicide will be increased if his detention is further prolonged or if attempts are made to remove him forcibly. His opinion is that the Claimant is unfit to fly.
The Claimant argued on this basis that removal would expose him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.
I have not been presented with evidence suggesting that the impact of continued detention on the Claimant’s mental health will be any more severe if that detention is in France than if it is in the UK. There is no reason to suppose that access to medical treatment in France will be materially different. However, in France, the Claimant will not necessarily be detained.
The real question here is whether undergoing a forced flight might, in itself, have an adverse effect on the Claimant’s mental or physical health.
The Defendant states that the risks associated with this have been assessed and planned for. The Claimant will be assessed by a specialist contractor upon collection from the immigration removal centre for fitness to fly. Dedicated security escorts will be in place to support the Claimant during the flight and appropriate information will be made available to all staff responsible for his care during his removal. The French authorities have been informed of his medical issues and I have required them to be provided with the Rule 35(3) report and with Dr Tisi’s report.
Ground 4: Failure to treat new evidence as a fresh claim
The Claimant asserts that the Defendant failed to consider whether the new evidence created a realistic prospect of success before a judge.
This adds nothing to the other grounds.
Overall, there is not a serious issue to be tried.
Balance of convenience
The proposed removal is intended to take place pursuant to the Agreement between the UK and France on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys (“Agreement”). The Agreement serves an important public interest, identified in its title – i.e., to prevent dangerous journeys from France to the UK, often in small boats. The fact that the case engages this public interest is of great relevance when considering the balance of convenience.
Under the Agreement, all individuals transferred are to be treated at all times in accordance with international law, including the Convention. The Claimant will be returned to Paris, where there are reception facilities. It has not been shown that the Claimant will be at real risk of immediate harm if he is returned to France, of that the French authorities will be unable to provide suitable accommodation or any necessary medical care, or otherwise to satisfy the Claimants rights under Article 3. The Claimant will be able to continue to pursue his claim from France. I have granted expedition, with a view to a permission decision being made within a short period of time. That will enable the court to assess the merits of the claim with the benefit of proper representations from both sides. If it then turns out that there is a properly arguable claim for judicial review, and that the Claimant is at risk in France, it will be open to him to seek an order requiring his return to the United Kingdom. Given that there is no evidence of an immediate risk to the Claimant, allowing the removal to take its course, but with the potential for him to return if there is shown to be a risk if he remains there for longer, will provide a sufficient safeguard for the Claimant. Conversely, there is a strong public interest in the Secretary of State being able to pursue her “1 in 1 out” policy unless or until it is shown to be unlawful or that, in an individual case, a return decision (or a necessary step towards making the return decision) is unlawful. If the court grants interim relief in cases where that has not been shown, then that would be injurious to the public interest. It would reduce the deterrent effect which is fundamental to the intended purpose of the policy so as to reduce large-scale unlawful and dangerous attempts to enter the United Kingdom. This militates strongly in favour of refusing interim relief.
In these circumstances, the balance of convenience strongly militates against the grant of interim relief.
It follows that, even if there had been a serious issue to be tried on any of the grounds, I would have refused interim relief.
Signed: Mr Justice Bright
Dated: 29 October 2025