Immigration Detention Discrimination UK 2025: Equality Act Legal Rights

Equality Act 2010 Immigration Detention Legal Framework

The Equality Act 2010 provides comprehensive disability discrimination protections applicable to immigration detention through two interconnected legal mechanisms. Section 149 establishes the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requiring public authorities including the Home Office to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations between disabled and non-disabled persons. This anticipatory duty requires proactive consideration of disabled detainees' needs before discrimination occurs rather than reactive responses following identified failures.

Section 20 imposes the duty to make reasonable adjustments where a provision, criterion or practice puts disabled individuals at substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons. For immigration detention, this encompasses decision-making procedures regarding detention continuation, segregation decisions, bail applications, and access to legal representation where mentally ill detainees lack capacity to engage effectively with Home Office processes. The government's Public Sector Equality Duty guidance confirms that eliminating unlawful conduct includes failure to make reasonable adjustments alongside direct and indirect discrimination.

Schedule 18 Immigration Function Exceptions

While Schedule 18 of the Equality Act 2010 provides limited exceptions for immigration and nationality functions, these exceptions specifically exclude disability from their scope. Immigration decision-makers retain full obligations to eliminate disability discrimination and make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals subject to immigration detention. The exceptions apply only to the protected characteristics of age, race (relating to nationality or ethnic/national origins), and religion or belief for the purpose of advancing equality of opportunity, leaving disability protections entirely intact for immigration detention contexts.

Landmark Court of Appeal Discrimination Judgments

The Court of Appeal in R (VC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 57 delivered the foundational judgment establishing that immigration detention procedures discriminate against mentally ill detainees through systemic failure to make reasonable adjustments. VC, detained under immigration powers while suffering serious mental illness requiring multiple Mental Health Act 1983 sectioning episodes, challenged procedural inadequacies preventing effective engagement with detention decisions. The court identified specific provisions, criteria and practices (PCPs) putting mentally ill detainees at substantial disadvantage, including inadequate processes for understanding detention reasons and making representations against continued detention or segregation.

Lord Justice Beatson concluded that the Secretary of State failed to discharge the burden of proving compliance with reasonable adjustment duties, finding that the Home Office had not demonstrated consideration of adjustments such as Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) representation for mentally ill detainees lacking capacity to challenge detention decisions effectively. The Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened highlighting procedural safeguards available under Mental Health Act 1983 detention that were entirely absent from immigration detention frameworks, exposing the discriminatory disparity in treatment between mental health and immigration detention contexts.

R (ASK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1239

The subsequent R (ASK) judgment confirmed continuing discrimination against mentally ill immigration detainees despite the earlier VC findings, with Lord Justice Hickinbottom noting that despite 17 months passing since the VC judgment, insufficient steps had been taken to comply with reasonable adjustment duties. ASK, detained from January to September 2013 before psychiatric hospital admission, and MDA, detained November 2015 to February 2017 following multiple Mental Health Act sectioning episodes, demonstrated that procedural failures remained systemic rather than isolated incidents.

The Court of Appeal held that both appellants were treated differently from non-disabled detainees in relation to continuing detention, segregation decisions, and hospital transfer determinations. In breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Secretary of State failed to have due regard to eliminating discrimination while failing to make obvious reasonable adjustments such as IMCA-type representation. The instructing solicitors in the consolidated appeal stated that the judgment exposed ongoing failure to implement adequate safeguards for vulnerable mentally ill detainees despite repeated court findings mandating systemic change.

Brook House Inquiry Findings and Ongoing Failures

The Brook House Inquiry published September 2023 represented the first statutory public inquiry into immigration detention conditions, examining abuse at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre during 2017 following BBC Panorama undercover footage. The Inquiry identified 19 credible breaches of Article 3 ECHR (prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment) within a five-month period, describing a 'toxic' and 'dehumanising' culture with systemic safeguarding failures affecting asylum seekers and refugees alongside other vulnerable detainees. Chair Kate Eves made 33 recommendations for urgent changes including a statutory 28-day detention time limit, fundamental review of Rule 35 safeguarding mechanisms, and comprehensive use of force reviews.

The government response published March 2024 focused on changes purportedly already implemented rather than accepting fundamental reform recommendations. The Gatwick Independent Monitoring Board 2023 annual report published August 2024 found that failings identified by the Brook House Inquiry remained unaddressed, with weak Home Office safeguards continuing to fail vulnerable detainees and Rule 35 reports undermined by frequent discretionary decisions to maintain detention despite identified vulnerability.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons Detention Estate Reports

HM Inspectorate of Prisons published devastating findings regarding Harmondsworth IRC in July 2024, describing conditions as 'decrepit' with 'the worst' conditions ever seen in UK immigration detention. The inspection documented substantial increases in violence, drug use, and serious suicide attempts, with facilities inadequate for vulnerable detained populations. November 2024 inspection of Brook House IRC itself found substantial rises in self-harm and violence since previous inspection, declining safety and respect standards, poorer healthcare provision, and failing safeguards despite Inquiry recommendations.

Adults at Risk Policy and Safeguarding Failures

The Adults at Risk (AAR) statutory guidance revised May 2024 through Statutory Instrument represents the primary policy framework supposedly protecting vulnerable individuals from detention harm. The policy identifies risk indicators including serious mental health conditions, PTSD, torture survivorship, and trafficking experience, applying three-tier evidence levels determining whether individuals should be detained despite identified vulnerabilities. However, the May 2024 amendments shifted policy emphasis toward facilitating detention decisions rather than protecting vulnerable individuals, with revised aims removing previous commitments to reduce vulnerable detainee numbers.

Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 requires IRC doctors to report to the Home Office when detained individuals' health is likely to be injuriously affected by detention, when suicidal intentions are suspected, or when torture victimhood is indicated. Despite statutory safeguarding intentions, multiple reviews including Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration assessments and parliamentary evidence submissions confirm that Rule 35 operates as an ineffective safeguard, with Home Office caseworkers routinely overruling clinical judgment to maintain detention.

• Rule 35(1) Reports: Required when detention likely to injuriously affect health, triggering mandatory detention review by Home Office caseworkers who frequently exercise discretion to maintain detention despite clinical evidence
• Rule 35(2) Reports: Concern suspected suicidal intentions requiring immediate notification, though Medical Justice evidence shows only 6% of harmed detainees receive appropriate reports
• Rule 35(3) Reports: Address torture victimhood identification with unlawfully narrowed definition successfully challenged in R (EO) v Secretary of State [2017] requiring restoration of broader interpretation
• Second Medical Opinion Policy: High Court quashed January 2024 in Medical Justice v SSHD finding delays caused by requiring Home Office second opinions violated Equality Act protections for vulnerable detainees

Challenging Discrimination and Legal Remedies

Individuals experiencing immigration detention discrimination UK 2025 can pursue multiple legal remedies depending on circumstances and desired outcomes. Judicial review challenges targeting ongoing detention decisions require demonstrating Home Office failure to comply with Equality Act duties, Adults at Risk policy requirements, or Hardial Singh principles limiting detention to reasonable periods with realistic removal prospects. Those facing deportation proceedings may combine discrimination claims with substantive immigration appeals where Article 3 ECHR protections are engaged. The limitation period for Human Rights Act 1998 claims is one year from the discriminatory act, while general Equality Act claims benefit from six-year limitation periods enabling retrospective challenges where unlawful detention can be established.

Compensation claims for unlawful detention can secure substantial damages, with Court of Appeal guidance indicating approximately £1,000 for the first hour and £6,000 for 24 hours of wrongful detention at 2019 values, with aggravating factors including mental health deterioration, vulnerability exploitation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments enhancing awards significantly. Immigration judicial review proceedings provide the primary mechanism for challenging ongoing detention decisions where Equality Act breaches can be demonstrated. Legal aid availability for public law challenges depends on means and merits testing, while conditional fee agreements (no win, no fee) may be available for compensation claims meeting viability thresholds.

Immediate Steps for Detainees and Representatives

Detained individuals experiencing mental health deterioration should ensure IRC healthcare providers complete Rule 35 reports documenting health impact and vulnerability indicators, while requesting copies of all detention reviews, Detention and Case Progression Reviews, and Adults at Risk assessments to identify procedural failures. External medical reports from organisations such as Medical Justice provide independent clinical evidence frequently carrying greater weight than IRC healthcare assessments, documenting mental health conditions, detention impact, and treatment inadequacy supporting release applications and subsequent compensation claims.

Bail applications before the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) provide judicial oversight of detention decisions, with Section 4 accommodation and electronic monitoring alternatives enabling community-based supervision. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2025 introduces concerning provisions potentially expanding detention powers and reducing judicial oversight, making prompt legal challenge of current detention decisions increasingly important before further legislative changes restrict available remedies and enhance executive discretion at the expense of vulnerable detainee protections.