The High Court rules on the enforcement of an Inquiry’s recommendations

A recent judicial review was brought by three former immigration detainees to determine whether the Home Office was in breach of its Article 3 ECHR duty by not implementing the recommendations in the Brook House Inquiry’s report. 

Facts 

The Brook House Statutory Public Inquiry was established in November 2019 to investigate the mistreatment of individuals detained at the Brook House Immigration Removal Centre. The Inquiry’s report was published on 19 September 2023. The Chair of the Inquiry, Kate Eves, found evidence of 19 incidents of mistreatment of detainees, including physical assaults, threats of violence, verbal abuse, racism, excessive use of force and segregation, and failures to protect vulnerable people.  In accordance with section 24 (1) (b) of the Inquiries Act 2005, the Chair made recommendations, the vast majority of which were directed to the Home Office. 

Last month three former immigration detainees brought a judicial review claim arguing that the Home Office is in breach of its Article 3 investigative duty for failing to act on, or insufficiently act on, the Inquiry’s recommendations. In addition to their personal experiences and evidence that there are on-going concerns at the Brook House Immigration Removal Centre, the Claimants sought to rely on material which the Defendant considered was covered by parliamentary privilege and therefore inadmissible.

Decision 

At a rolled-up permission and substantive hearing the High Court agreed with the Home Office’s argument that its response to the Inquiry, namely the implementation of the recommendations, are outside the ambit of the investigation. Mrs Justice Lang agreed and found that the Home Office has no legal obligation to comply with the recommendations in the Brook House Inquiry report stating, “They are recommendations, not directions” and “The BHI [Brook House Inquiry] had no power to compel the Defendant to implement its recommendations”. Further, the High Court found that the Home Office had either met, substantially met, was in the course of meeting, or had discretion to not accept or implement whole or part of the 33 recommendations in the Brook House Inquiry report. 

Mrs Justice Lang was not satisfied that the Claimants had established that the Home Office’s responses to the recommendations in the Brook House Inquiry report amounted to an ongoing  breach of the duty under Article 3 ECHR, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The judgment makes clear that the Article 3 ECHR investigative duty extended to the Inquiry’s investigation into the past events at Brook House only, and if any breaches of Article 3 are “apparent or imminent, the appropriate role for the Court would be to adjudicate upon a claim brought by a victim which set out the individual and/ or systemic breaches alleged… [and] a trial with witnesses will be ordered.”  

While the High Court granted permission to apply for judicial review on several of the Claimant’s grounds, the claim for judicial review was ultimately dismissed.  

Key takeaways

Inquiries' powers of recommendations lack teeth 

The judgment reminds us that inquiries cannot directly enforce their recommendations. The House of Lords report on the operation of public inquiries recognised this fact and criticised  how recommendations publicly accepted by the Government are often not subsequently implemented.  The High Court decision makes clear that the Inquiry’s powers are investigative only and the court will not intervene to compel a body or organisation to implement the recommendations of an Inquiry Chair. 

Parliamentary privilege 

The judgment also provides a useful reminder of categories of documents that attract parliamentary privilege and are not admissible on the basis that reliance on the material amounts to “questioning or impeaching” what was said or done in Parliament. These include: 

• Findings of a Parliamentary Committee 
• Evidence to Parliamentary 
• Reports by the National Audit Office 
• Ministerial statements to Parliament 

The parties, and Mrs Justice Lang, agreed that in this exceptional case reliance upon Government responses to Parliamentary Committees was admissible but this was highly fact specific and the decision turned primarily on the fact that the particular committee no longer existed after it published its report “Public inquiries: Enhancing public trust”, and the Government’s response had not been issued as a command paper. 

The Claimants have applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the High Court’s decision and we eagerly await the outcome of the application.  

Please do not hesitate to get in touch with the team should you wish to discuss any judicial review or inquiries matters further. 

[2025] EWHC 185 (Admin)