header-logo header-logo

Phone & data seizure ruled unlawful

31 March 2022
Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail
The Home Secretary unlawfully seized more than 2000 mobile phones from asylum seekers and extracted vast amounts of data, the High Court has held

The three claimants arrived on small boats between April and September 2020. They were immediately searched by immigration officers, had their mobile phones seized and retained and were ordered to provide their PIN under threat of criminal penalties. This was done as part of a blanket and unpublished Home Office policy.

The Home Secretary initially denied the policy existed but later admitted it did. She argued the Immigration Act 2016, s 48 empowered her to search arrivals, seize phones and extract data, but later conceded the policy was unlawful, and informed the court she self-referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office in July 2021 for breaching data protection law.

Ruling in R (HM) v Home Secretary [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin), Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Lane held the policy was unlawful and breached data protection and human rights laws (Art 8). They held s 48, Immigration Act 2016 could not be used to carry out personal searches, and also rejected Home Office arguments at trial that the phones had been seized under para 25B of Sched 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (items that could present a danger or assist a person to escape). They stopped short of ruling further on data protection issues since the Information Commissioner’s Office is now investigating the matter. A further hearing will now take place to decide remedies and consider breaches of the Home Secretary’s duty of candour.

Clare Jennings, director, Gold Jennings, representing HM, said: ‘But for this litigation the Home Secretary’s policies would have remained shrouded in secrecy, including the fact that for many months the entire contents of a person’s mobile phone―text messages, photographs, contacts etc―were being extracted and possibly shared with third parties.’

Daniel Carey, partner, Deighton Pierce Glynn, representing KH and MA, said: ‘All of this had real impacts on very vulnerable people, who lost touch with their families and couldn’t get their asylum documentation, while the phones languished on a shelf for many months, many which now cannot be returned.’
Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll