Claim number: AC-2022-LON-003397
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
8 September 2023
R (on the application of) GH
Secretary of State for the Home Department
UPON the Claimant having been released on 14/12/2022 to safe house accommodation in accordance with the terms of the order of Eady J dated 26/11/2022 which was obtained as part of an urgent, out of hours application;
AND UPON the Defendant fitting the Claimant with an electronic monitoring device on 14/12/2022;
AND UPON the Claimant being granted permission (pursuant to the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Pievsky KC dated 22 March 2023) to rely on amended grounds of 13 February 2023 to challenge the imposition of electronic monitoring (the claim was originally brought prior to his release from detention and therefore prior to the imposition of the electronic monitoring device);
AND UPON the claim also being stayed (pursuant to the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Pievsky KC dated 22 March 2023) to enable the Claimant to make further representations regarding electronic monitoring and for the Defendant to consider the same. These were made on 3 March 2023;
AND UPON the Defendant maintaining the electronic monitoring in decisions dated 30 March 2023 and 18 April 2023; AC-2022-LON-003397
AND UPON the Claimant serving further representations regarding electronic monitoring on 20 April 2023 and these being served on the Defendant’s Electronic Monitoring Hub on 25 April 2023;
AND UPON the Claimant filing and serving re-amended grounds of judicial review of 25 April 2023;
AND UPON the Defendant filing and serving an Amended Acknowledgment of Service and Amended Summary Grounds of Defence on 18 May 2023;
AND UPON the Defendant issuing a decision on 13 June 2023 stating that electronic monitoring is no longer appropriate in the Claimant’s case; such decision being communicated to the Claimant’s solicitors on 21 June 2023.
AND UPON the Defendant’s position being that the decision of 13 June 2023 was prompted by the further representations of 20 April 2023 which in her view contain materially different information, however this is not accepted by the Claimant. His position is that these representations and supporting evidence were consistent with the Claimant’s position since the pre-action correspondence.
AND UPON the Claimant removing the electronic tag with the assistance of his support worker on 23 June 2023 in accordance with the instructions provided by the Defendant.
AND UPON the parties agreeing that the damages claims in this case (Ground 2: Unlawful detention until 14 December 2022 of an adult at risk and a victim of trafficking/modern slavery, Ground 3: delay in providing a report in accordance with rule 34(1), Ground 4: Decision to impose the Electronic Monitoring condition is unlawful on public law grounds and breaches article 4 and/or 8 ECHR, Ground 5: the fitting of the electronic monitoring tag on the Claimant on 14 December 2022 was unlawful on public law grounds and breaches articles 4 and/or 8 ECHR and Ground 6: the decisions of the Defendant of 30 March 2023 and 18 April 2023 to maintain the electronic monitoring are unlawful on public law grounds and breach articles 4 and/or 8 ECHR) should be transferred to the London Central County Court.
AND UPON the parties agreeing that the claim should be stayed for 5 months to enable the parties to explore settlement;
BY CONSENT, it is ordered that:-
1. The Claimant withdraws the above numbered claim for judicial review save for the damages claims relating to grounds 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. This claim for damages shall proceed as a claim under CPR Part 7 and will be transferred to the Central London County Court for consideration of liability and if appropriate, any quantum of damages, at the expiry of five(5)months of this sealed order if the parties have not filed a further consent order.
2. The matter of legal costs is to be dealt with by way of costs submissions.
3. The Claimant is to file and serve costs submissions within 21 days of the date this order is sealed.
4. The Defendant is to file and serve a response to the Claimant’s costs submissions within 21 days of the receipt of the Claimant’s submissions.
5. The Claimant may Reply to the Defendant’s costs submissions within a further 14 days of receiving the Defendant’s costs submissions, if so advised.
6. There shall be a detailed assessment of the Claimant’s publicly funded costs in accordance with the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.