Home Office breached human rights of couple kept apart in immigration detention, judge rules

The Home Office could be forced to pay damages after breaching the human rights of a married couple held in separate accommodation prior to their planned deportation to India, the High Court has ruled.

A Muslim man and his Hindu wife mounted legal action against the department last year, claiming their separate housing ahead of removal was an "unlawful interference" with their right to a family life.

The couple entered the UK in 2022, but their legal leave to remain lapsed in 2024.

They sought asylum in March 2025 over fears of persecution in India due to their interfaith marriage. The Home Office refused the application in August last year, certifying it as "clearly unfounded", which prevented an appeal.

The pair were detained separately from September last year pending removal, before being released in early October.

At a June hearing, barristers for the couple argued the refusal of asylum was "procedurally unfair" and unlawful, and that certifying the claim as "clearly unfounded" was "irrational".

They also argued that detaining them apart unlawfully interfered with their human rights, entitling them to financial damages.

The Home Office contested the asylum claim challenge, with its legal team arguing the couple received a fair opportunity to submit evidence.

The department initially told the court that while shared accommodation was generally available for married couples, the pair were separated because of their imminent removal.

In a ruling on Tuesday, Deputy High Court Judge Simon Tinkler said the Home Office later conceded during the hearing that keeping them apart during detention unlawfully interfered with their human rights.

The judge explained that this admission followed the department realising it had no facility where they could be housed together, having had no such provision since 2020.

He said: "The position maintained by the Home Office throughout the proceedings to that point, that there had been genuine consideration of housing FNB and FNN together was, the Home Office admitted, essentially a fiction."

Judge Tinkler dismissed the challenge to the asylum decision, ruling it was "correct and is the decision the court would have made".

However, he ruled the couple were entitled to damages for the acknowledged human rights breach regarding their detention, which will be calculated at a county court at a later date.

In his 28-page ruling, Judge Tinkler criticised the Home Office’s "serious failure" in its duty to be candid to the court, stating the court had been "misled".

He said: "It may, or may not, be entirely legitimate not to provide family accommodation for families without dependent children for a short period pending removal.

"But it is not legitimate to mislead the claimants and the court into believing that such accommodation exists.

"Nor is it legitimate to mislead the claimants and court that such accommodation was actively considered for these claimants and that the option of it was rejected."

He added: "It is also for the Home Office urgently to review all current cases in which a similar matter has been raised to ensure that the Home Office is complying with its obligations to the court and other parties."