Detention of ordinary overstayer/ minor offender and her two young children for three and a half months after completion of fast-tracking was unlawful.

There was also a breach of the Article 8 ECHR rights of the youngest child who developed rickets and anaemia in detention.

Home Office policy on detention of families with children is found to be lawful. But Home Office policy on immigration detention requires particular care to be taken over detention of children. Detention of Claimants had been contrary to Home Office Policy because there had been no special reasons to believe Claimants posed an absconsion risk &  detention was not used as a last resort or for the shortest possible time as policy required. 

Separate point:Home Office should have known as soon as fast tracking was over that removal was not possible for at least 2 months: this was far too long a period. Therefore Claimants' detention became unlawful as soon as fast tracking was completed.

Helpful points -
1) The period for which it is reasonable to detain an ordinary overstayer/ minor offender with children is 'bound to be far less than' 2 months.

2) Accepted by Defendant in this case that Children Act 1989 applies to children in immigration detention as it does to children in YOI's.

3) Court accepts Articles 37 (b) and 3 UNCRC affect interpretation of Art 5 ECHR . UK's general 'immigration reservation' to the UNCRC is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to affect the application of the UNCRC to children in immigration detention.