Jane Ryan's Notable Cases

Jane's notable cases include:

SSHD v MS (A child by his litigation friend MAS) [2019] EWCA Civ 1340

The Home Office has lost its appeal in this an important case relating to the rights of child refugees seeking family reunion. The judgment vindicates the rights of children to challenge family reunion decisions.

R (ASK, a protected party by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, NHSE, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Secretary of State for Justice and Equality and Human Rights Commission [2019] EWCA Civ 1239

A judicial review challenging the detention of an immigration detainee who lacked capacity. Overturning the court below, the Court of Appeal found that the Home Office had discriminated against ASK and MDA under the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable adjustments for their mental health conditions, leading to calls for changes to the treatment of immigration detainees with mental health conditions.

R (Grantham) v The Parole Board [2019] 1 WLUK 150

An IPP sentenced prisoner who had served nearly three times his tariff successfully challenged the Parole Board’s decision to refuse to direct his release or recommend his transfer to open conditions.

R (MS, a child by his litigation friend MAS) v SSHD [2019] UKUT 9 (IAC)

In an important case for asylum seeking children’s rights, and for the first time in a judicial review of a take charge refusal under the Dublin III Regulation, the Upper Tribunal determined the family relationship for itself and gave guidance on the right to an effective remedy for children seeking asylum. The Upper Tribunal also ruled that the Home Secretary’s decisions refusing our client’s request to join his brother in the UK were unlawful.

R (KXJ) v SSJ and Governor of HMP Wymott CO/1267/2018

A successful challenge by a transgender prisoner on the grounds of Article 8 ECHR and procedural fairness in transgender case boards, the process in prison by which transgender prisoner are managed.

C v Avon and Somerset Police C00MY212 (2017)

In a ground breaking case, Avon and Somerset constabulary admitted discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment for the presence of male officers during the strip search of a transgender woman. C received substantive damages and an apology, as well as admissions of discrimination and assault. See press coverage here. This was the first time a police force has admitted gender reassignment discrimination in a non-employment context and has led to changes in practices within the police.

JXT v Ministry of Justice C00MY306 (2017)

A claim by a transgender woman prisoner who was allocated to a male prison and held in segregation in a male prison for fourteen months. JXT, brought legal proceedings against the Ministry of Justice for declaratory relief and damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, for misfeasance, negligence, breaches of the Equality Act 2010, Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 3, 8 and 14 ECHR). In July 2017 the Ministry of Justice agreed to settle JXT’s claims. The terms of the settlement were confidential however she received public apologies from the prisons because of the way she was treated. See press coverage here.

Tara Hudson v Secretary of State for Justice (2016)

Challenge on behalf of a transgender woman who was allocated to a male prison.

Read Jane’s article for Legal Action Group about transgender people’s rights in criminal justice here.

MK, IK and HK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2016)

In a judgment handed down on 29 April 2016, the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber allowed an application for judicial review brought by two unaccompanied refugee children (IK and HK) living in Calais seeking family reunification with their mother (MK), who has settled status as a refugee in the United Kingdom. The judgment provides important clarification of the SSHD’s duties to act expeditiously and proactively to establish evidence of family relationships.

R (PA) v SSHD [2014] CO/1978/2014

A groundbreaking challenge by a pregnant asylum seeker, known as PA, the Home Secretary agreed to review the policy on detention of pregnant women. The Home Office apologised to the claimant, agreed to review its policy on pregnant women in detention, issue a new Detention Service Order and pay compensation for unlawful detention.

Read Jane's article on the ongoing detention of pregnant women at Yarl's Wood for the Justice Gap here.

R(PU) v SSHD [2015] CO/814/2015

Test case challenging the detention of trafficking victims on the Detained Fast Track. The High Court declared that the detention of three potential victims of human trafficking in the Detained Fast Track breached Article 4 ECHR on the prohibition on slavery and exploited labour. This was the first time Article 4 has been found to be breached in an immigration detention context

R (Hart) v SSJ [2014] EWHC [2014] EWHC 3913

The High Court found that a decision to impose “safeguarding children measures,” which prevented a prisoner from having contact with his daughter, was unlawful. The case resulted in a series of successful challenges to the practice at HMP Whitemoor.

R (Idira) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 4299

Test case now before the Court of Appeal challenging the detention of immigration detainees in prison. The claim raised important issues under Article 5(1)(f) ECHR of holding immigration detainees in prisons following the High Court decision ([2014] EWHC 4299).

R on the application Francis v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 718

Acted for the intervener Bail for Immigration Detainees in an important case concerning the Secretary of State’s immunity from false imprisonment claims by those recommended for deportation.

R on the application of Sino v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2249 

This judicial review challenged Claimant’s detention and the Court found that the entire period of detention of 4 years 11 months was unlawful from the outset. It is thought to be one of the longest periods of immigration detention in a non-national security context

R (Chen and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CO/1119/2013)

This judicial review claim challenged the legality of the practice of the use of force against children and pregnant women under immigration powers, in circumstances where no policy was in place. The Children’s Commissioner supported the claim as an interested party. The case resulted in the reinstatement of a former policy prohibiting the use of force against both groups save for where it is essential to prevent harm. Owing to the reinstatement of the policy, the claim settled prior to permission. The relevant orders and statement of the Home Office’s concessions and current policy position will be posted here soon.

R (ASK) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others CO/9816/2013

The High Court ordered that an immigration detainee, ASK, who suffers from severe mental illness, be released on bail on 25 September 2013 unless he had by then been admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983.

 

 
 
  • Jane Ryan
Jane Ryan, Photo Sarah Booker
 

More pages in this section