Supreme Court decision in Medical Justice’s judicial review

The Supreme Court has refused the Home Secretary permission to appeal against a March 2025 Court of Appeal ruling that the Home Office is required to consult charity Medical Justice in relation to immigration detention policies affecting vulnerable people (‘adults at risk’).

In January 2024, the High Court decided, based on detailed evidence filed by Medical Justice, that there was an established practice of consulting Medical Justice on adults at risk immigration detention policies. The Home Office breached Medical Justice’s legitimate expectation that it would be consulted on a policy providing for a process for the Home Office to seek second opinion medical reports where a medico-legal report was submitted by or on behalf of a detained person.

In March 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that there was no basis for interfering with the High Court judge’s decision that the evidence before him demonstrated that there was indeed a consistent established practice of the Home Office consulting Medical Justice on adults at risk immigration detention policies.

The Home Secretary’s application for permission to appeal was refused by Supreme Court Justices Lord Hodge, Lord Sales and Lady Rose on 4 July 2025, on the basis that the application “does not raise a point of law of general public importance”.

This is an important victory for Medical Justice, which made clear in the evidence the charity placed before the court that it seeks to work constructively with the Home Office to improve policies for people who are subject to immigration detention. This work is vitally important because there are very few formal legal restrictions on how the very broad immigration detention powers vested in the Home Office are exercised. The courts, inquiries and inspection bodies have repeatedly found the Home Office to have abused these powers, resulting in numerous findings that vulnerable people have been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in UK immigration detention.

Medical Justice was represented by Jed Pennington, partner and joint head of the firm’s Public Law & Human Rights team, assisted by solicitors and caseworkers in his team. Counsel instructed were Shu Shin Luh and Laura Profumo, led in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court by Angus McCullough KC.

For any queries about the case, please contact Medical Justice’s Director, Emma Ginn emma.ginn@medicaljustice.org.uk.

The case was conducted on a conditional fee arrangement under which the firm and counsel would only be paid costs recovered between the parties. Medical Justice was granted a Costs Capping Order by the Administrative Court which was continued by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ordered the Home Secretary to pay 50% of Medical Justice’s legal costs in the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal; and the Supreme Court ordered the Home Office to pay Medical Justice’s costs of responding to the permission to appeal application.

If you would like to speak to our team about representing you or your organisation in public interest litigation in the immigration system, please email public@wilsonllp.co.uk.

‍