IM (Nigeria), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

1. LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY : This appellant has permission to appeal the order of Ouseley J. That permission was given by the judge. We indicated earlier this morning that we would direct expedition of the hearing of that appeal.

2. All that we are concerned with today is the application for interim relief. Time does not permit and justice does not require that we go into any details at this stage about the arguments that have been addressed to us this morning.

3. The issue is whether interim relief should be granted in the form that the appellant be released from immigration detention on the basis that he would reside with a named friend and another named friend would provide a surety of £1,000.

4. The draft order submitted on his behalf also states that the release would be to "enable him to attend an accident and emergency department for urgent treatment."

5. This is ultimately a balance of convenience case so far as the application for interim relief is concerned. One of the main concerns about the balance of convenience relates to the timing of the hearing of the appeal.

6. In the course of the morning we have ascertained that the full appeal can be listed in this court, albeit not before any of the three of us, next Monday. In these circumstances that seems to us to be the appropriate outcome of today's proceedings. Without going into detail we do not think it appropriate to direct the release of the appellant from immigration detention pending the hearing of the appeal on Monday. There would be a number of uncertainties and unpredictabilities and Monday is only a short time away.

7. To the extent that the appellant is in a sorry state and the subject of an end of life plan, properly prepared by the medical authorities at the detention centre, that of course causes concern. But the most we feel it is appropriate to do to allay that concern is to ensure that his appeal is heard rapidly.

8. As has been said repeatedly during the course of the hearing, and as Ms Laing QC sensibly accepts, any vicissitudes that ensue are of the appellant's own making in that he has chosen, with full capacity, to adopt his present position and to give advance direction as to his wishes and objection to medical treatment in his present circumstances. That is his prerogative but we do not think that he is entitled to interim relief in the circumstances as they now exist.

9. Relief refused. Expedition directed. Case to be heard on Monday. Counsel on both sides to submit skeleton arguments by 4 o'clock tomorrow and to produce an agreed version of the judgment, whether as a result of obtaining something from the judge or agreement between themselves, it matters not. We had the impression that the differences between them as to the judgment are minor textual matters rather than anything that would obstruct the proper hearing and disposal of the hearing on Monday.