Home Secretary's attempt to deport John Quaquah blocked by High Court

The High Court in December overturned the decision of the Home Secretary to deport an asylum seeker currently engaged in litigation against the Home Office arising out of events at Campsfield Immigrant Detention Centre in 1997.

John Quaquah was detained at Campsfield in August 1997. He, and eight other detainees, were charged with offences of riot after a protest at Campsfield. The Campsfield Nine were acquitted of all charges after the criminal trial collapsed in June 1998 when the evidence of Group 4 employees - running the detention centre under a private contract - was found to be unreliable.
The behaviour of these Group 4 officers was described in the following terms in today's decision:
“It was accepted, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that if the conduct of the Group 4 officers both during the incident of unrest itself as well as their conduct in giving unreliable / false evidence was established, then it satisfied the description of having been ‘wicked’.”

After his acquittal, Mr Quaquah sought to bring a claim for damages for malicious prosecution against the Home Office as well as Group 4. He was then served with a deportation order.

In a landmark decision last December, the High Court ruled that a deportation order against John Quaquah should be quashed for failing to pay proper regard to the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the requirements of the new Civil Procedure Rules, both of which require an 'equality of arms' for parties engaged in litigation. Mr Quaquah's lawyers had successfully argued that it would be impossible for him to conduct his litigation on equal terms from Ghana.

Mr Justice Turner, in giving his judgement, drew not only on the requirements of the European Convention but also the recent ruling on bias in the Pinochet case. He commented:

“It is, I believe, unarguable that in the circumstances of the present case, the Applicant is seeking to assert a human right by bringing proceedings for damages arising out of the trial in which he was acquitted…

“The case may be one in which the agencies of the state (the Group 4 custodians) have breached, in the public sphere, duties which they owed to those who were held in the Detention Centre and for which the respondent (the Secretary of State) had the overall legal responsibility. …

“It was demonstrable that the Secretary of State was, albeit unintentionally, putting difficulties in the way of the applicant being able to get his case together for the purposes of a trial. It was this which could give rise to an appearance of bias in the decision to refuse exceptional leave to remain.”

Mr Quaquah's solicitor, Mark Scott of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, commented that:

“My client is delighted that the court has recognised his right to seek redress through the courts on an even playing field for his treatment at Campsfield House. The stress arising from that treatment and the uncertainty about his situation in this country has been extremely difficult for him.

“I trust that the Home Secretary will accept this judgement and will not make any further attempts to deport him. I hope he has now learnt that he should not deploy the battery of powers at his disposal in any way which suggests even an appearance of unfair advantage in the face of action brought by individuals against him.”

Suke Wolton, from the Campsfield Nine Defence Campaign, comments: “Detention of asylum seekers needs to be kept under close scrutiny. The Home Office has been forced to allow John Quaquah to pursue his civil case and its investigation into what happened in Campsfield Detention Centre. They cannot silence their critics by sending their opponent 3000 miles away.