Foreign National Prisoner

Mr M was a foreign national prisoner. A number of years ago whilst living in the UK he had committed an offence, for which he served a prison term. At the end of his sentence he was deported to Iran. After a few years later Mr M was arrested as he attempted to gain access to the UK. He had spent more than 12 hours travelling underneath a lorry. He was placed in Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre. Whilst in Iran Mr M had suffered torture. The use of removal centres is to detain individuals whose removal is imminent. Mr M had committed no crime and yet he was held at Colnbrook IRC for over 16 months. He had 12 bail applications refused as the Home Office stated his removal was “imminent”. This was said to be the case even though the Iranian Embassy was not supplying Emergency Travel Documents to enable removal to be effected. Mr M contacted BBK and funding was obtained to judicially review the decision to keep him detained. A Letter before Claim was sent setting out that continued detention was in breach of Mr M’s Article 5 rights – Right to liberty. The letter was placed before the Judge at the next bail application, and Mr M was released from detention.

Eldery hospital patient

Mrs S was in her 80s. She required a routine hip operation. She was admitted to the William Harvey Hospital. Following her operation she seemed to be recovering well, and her family were pleased with her progress. However, after a few days it became clear that the hospital did not have enough staff to care for their patients. Mrs S had a number of falls. These happened in situations such as being taken to the bathroom and not being monitored. As a result of the falls Mrs S required further surgery. Her wounds were not properly cared for and sadly she developed septicaemia and died. Her son and grandchildren wanted to bring a claim against the hospital. However, as a clinical negligence claim the action would be worth hardly anything in damages as there was no bereavement award and no dependency claim, and so such a claim was not possible. Instead BBK used the Human Rights Act to enable her family to bring a claim. The claim was brought using Article 2 – the Right to Life, Article 3 – prohibition against torture and Article 8 – Right to a private and family life. The claim settled for a five figure sum.