AH and IS v Secretary of State for the Home Department: supplemental judgement on Article 3 ECHR systems failure

Mrs Justice Jefford DBE delivered a supplemental judgement in R (AH and IS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 127 (Admin) to clarify the scope and terms of declarations flowing from her principal judgement in the matter ([2025] EWHC 3269 (Admin)).

The case concerned claims by two immigration detainees held at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre regarding alleged Article 3 ECHR violations. Following the principal judgement, the parties agreed the terms of a consequential order, which was made upon handdown with a timetable for any further applications.

On 9 January 2026, the Secretary of State applied pursuant to CPR Part 40.12 (the slip rule) for the court to supplement or revise the published judgement to include detailed declarations made on ground 6 in AH's case and the equivalent ground in IS's case. These grounds concerned systemic failures in the operation of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. The defendant expressed concern that, without the terms of the declarations expressly stated in the judgement, there might be ambiguity as to their scope, particularly given that paragraph 3(vi) of the principal judgement set out the terms of the ground itself rather than the consequent relief.

The claimants adopted a neutral position, seeing no necessity for revision but raising no objection. All parties agreed the application could be determined on the papers.

Mrs Justice Jefford observed that paragraph 3(vi) of the principal judgement actually recited the terms of ground 6 of the claim for judicial review, not the declaration sought. The judgement had not set out the originally sought declarations in either case, as the court had invited the parties to agree the consequential order's terms—a process referenced in the final paragraphs of the principal judgement.

The judge doubted whether the application properly fell within the slip rule, noting there had been no accidental error or omission in either the judgement or the agreed order. The omission of the declarations' terms from the judgement was deliberate, as the court intended to invite the parties to agree them. Relying on Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc [2023] EWHC 2563 (Comm), the Secretary of State argued the slip rule permitted correction of "an unintended effect" or "an ambiguity in the wording of the Order", but Mrs Justice Jefford found no inadvertent omission or ambiguity in the judgement itself regarding the court's decision.

Rather than applying the slip rule, Mrs Justice Jefford exercised her inherent jurisdiction to issue a supplemental judgement. The declarations made clear that from 28 July 2023 to 11 March 2024, the Secretary of State failed, in breach of Article 3 ECHR, effectively to implement the system at Brook House IRC to ensure immigration detainees within the scope of Rule 35 were protected from violations of their Article 3 rights. The Secretary of State's failure to identify the claimants as adults at risk, to release them on that basis, and the mistreatment whilst in detention resulted from this systemic Article 3 breach.

The supplemental judgement ensures clarity regarding the relief granted, confirming the precise scope of the declarations that both claimants were entitled to receive following the principal judgement's findings on the systemic failures at Brook House.

Copyright & permissions