Home Office

5. Mr H complains the Home Office’s WCS failed to properly consider his application as a Primary Claimant, under the category of ‘detention, deportation, removal & return’.

6. Mr H explained his experience surrounding his detention in a foreign national prison caused him substantial emotional distress and fear. He says he lost his rights, home, money, and education. He described the experience as mental torture. Because of this, Mr H says he does not agree with WCS’s decision to not award him compensation under this category.

7. As an outcome of this complaint, Mr H would like the WCS to reconsider its decision about the compensation he is entitled to. Mr H believes he should be compensated more than £100,000 under this category.

8. Mr H moved to the UK from Jamaica as a child in 1970. He applied for registration as a British citizen in 1981 and this was approved in 1982. The fee for this certification was paid at a later date, and Mr H received this certificate in 1994. The Home Office have evidence Mr H has held British passports since 1995.

9. In August 2013, Mr H was arrested and detained for crimes unrelated to his legal status. At this point, his British passport and driving licence were retained. Following this arrest, Mr H was convicted in April 2014 and received a 7-year prison sentence. He was detained in a regular prison at this time.

10. In December 2014, the Home Office’s Criminal Casework division received a referral from the prison referring to Mr H’s nationality as Jamaican. Because of this, Mr H was transferred to a foreign national prison, where he says he felt fearful for his life and his right to remain in the UK. We are unable to confirm what date Mr H was transferred to the foreign national prison specifically, however from the evidence available we know he was inducted on 17 February 2015 so we can say on the balance of probabilities he was transferred around this date.

11. The foreign national prison received Mr H’s British passport on 25 February the same year, and on 5 March 2015 Criminal Casework confirmed they would be taking no further action as Mr H’s passport had been received and his citizenship confirmed. Whilst we also cannot confirm the date Mr H was transferred out of the foreign national prison following this decision, because of the evidence available, we know his stay at this prison ended shortly after 5 March, so on the balance of probabilities, Mr H would likely have only stayed here a few days longer at most.

12. The WCS was created to support people who were unable to prove their legal right to live in the UK and were harmed as a result. It is open to applications from members of the Windrush generation, as well as certain relatives and close family members who experienced difficulties because of this. Through WCS, those affected can claim compensation under a range of categories including, but not limited to, loss of access to employment, immigration fees and legal costs, denial of access to services, impact on life, living costs, and detention, deportation, removal or return. Where appropriate, the scheme can also include a formal apology from the Home Office. Overall, WCS recognise what happened, put things right where possible, and provide fair redress for the harm caused by problems proving lawful status.

13. Mr H’s primary claim was received by WCS on 20 September 2023. When WCS considered Mr H’s claim to the scheme, they said whilst Mr H was moved to the foreign national prison because of questions relating to his citizenship status, they were unable to conclude he was originally detained under immigration laws. The conviction he was detained for was for crimes unrelated to his citizenship. The scheme did not consider Mr H’s initial detention was extended, or an early release date delayed due to an inability to demonstrate lawful status because his transfer occurred in the early stages of his sentence (around 17 February 2015), and his transfer out of the foreign national prison occurred before his sentence end date or early release eligibility date (around 5 March 2015). The evidence available shows Mr H was housed at the foreign national prison for approximately 16 to 17 days in total.

14. Based on the evidence available to them, the WCS could not conclude Mr H was detained, deported, or removed under the immigration legislation set out in this category of the WCS rules. Because of this, they did not award Mr H compensation under this category. However, Mr H was awarded a total of £20,000 under the impact on life category of the scheme for the emotional impacts he described resulting from his detention at the foreign national prison.

15. Mr H requested a review of the WCS’s decision in March 2024, however a tier 1 review in September 2024 reached the same conclusion. As Mr H remained dissatisfied, he requested a tier 2 review of the WCS’s decision. Following this request, in January 2025 the Adjudicator’s Office recommended the WCS reconsider their decision regarding the category of detention, deportation and removal. The WCS provided its final decision in March 2025, deciding Mr H was not detained under any of the relevant laws, and therefore could not be awarded under this category.

18. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

19. WCS should have considered Mr H’s claim in line with the scheme rules. They should have taken relevant evidence into account in line with our ‘Principles of Good Administration’.

20. In doing this, WCS reviewed Mr H’s claim form and submissions and correspondence with him. They also considered Mr H’s citizenship documents and Home Office files relating to his detention and criminal conviction.

21. Annex C1 of the WCS rules covers claims concerning detention, deportation, removal and return and explains an award can be given to a primary claimant when certain conditions are met. The claimant must have been detained, deported, removed or returned under provisions of the Immigration Act 1971, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or the UK Borders Act 2007.

22. A key reason for detention, deportation, removal or return must have been the person’s inability to demonstrate their lawful status. WCS must reasonably determine that, without this inability to demonstrate lawful status, the person would not have been detained, deported, removed or returned.

23. Where detention is involved, the rules say it must have taken place in a removal centre, short-term holding facility, prison or part of a prison, and the person’s release must have been prevented or refused by the authority responsible for detention.

24. Mr H explained to WCS how he was a registered British citizen and should have never been placed in a foreign national prison, for prisoners who are not British citizens. He told WCS that checks should be made before someone is placed in such a prison and in his case, these checks must not have been completed accurately. Mr H explained he had held a British passport since 1982 and there should have been evidence of this.

25. Mr H told WCS he had explained to staff at his original prison that he was a British national but says they did not listen. Mr H says he was told by staff within the prison he was a Jamaican citizen and had no rights. Records show Mr H was held at the foreign national prison from February to March 2015, he told us this was because prison staff believed he was Jamaican. Further queries were made with the intention to deport him back to Jamaica. Mr H described being treated badly here and said 99.9% of prisoners here were deported.

26. Mr H described to WCS how his transfer to the foreign national prison caused him stress by not being close to his children and hearing about the impacts on other inmates because they were going to be deported. Mr H explained the experience caused him anxiety, he was forced to share a cell when he previously had his own cell, and he feared being attacked by other prisoners.

27. During telephone calls with WCS, Mr H explained how he felt terrible in the foreign national prison and was treated as though he had no rights. He told them he was kept in his cell and was unable to go out or associate with other inmates. He described how he was in prison with suicidal men, who wished to end their lives rather than be deported. Mr H also explained the circumstances which led him to be transferred to the foreign national prison, saying he had been asked where he was born and he said Jamaica. Despite telling staff he had a British passport, he was not listened to and was transferred to the foreign national prison.

28. Alongside correspondence with Mr H, WCS reviewed his Home Office file. This file confirmed Mr H applied for registration as a British citizen in November 1981 and was issued an approval of registration letter in July 1982. The certification fee was not received at this time but cleared in June 1994. WCS also noted evidence of Mr H being issued British passports since 1995.

29. Home Office records show Mr H was arrested and detained at a police station in August 2013, where his British passport and driving licence were confiscated. In April 2014, Mr H received a 7-year prison sentence for crimes unrelated to his citizenship or lawful status, with a proposed date of eligibility for consideration under the early release scheme as June 2016. Mr H was detained at a regular prison to serve his sentence for these crimes.

30. There is evidence that the Home Office’s Criminal Casework division received a referral from the prison Mr H was originally held at in December 2014. This referral describes Mr H’s nationality as Jamaican. Following this referral, records show Mr H was transferred to a foreign national prison but records regarding the exact date of this transfer are unclear. However, records do show Mr H was inducted at the foreign national prison in February 2015. Mr H’s British passport was received by the foreign national prison just over a week later. Once this had been received, approximately 1-2 weeks later, the Home Office confirmed Criminal Casework would not be taking any further action and Mr H was transferred out of the foreign national prison and returned to a regular prison.

31. Whilst WCS acknowledged Mr H was initially transferred to the foreign national prison as his British citizenship was under question, they were unable to conclude Mr H was detained under one of the laws included in WCS rules set out above (see paragraph 21) because of his inability to demonstrate his lawful status. WCS explained this is because Mr H was originally convicted and detained for crimes unrelated to his lawful status.

32. WCS also could not consider Mr H’s detention was extended or any early release date postponed because of his inability to demonstrate lawful status. This was because they said Mr H’s transfer occurred during the early stages of his sentence, and his transfer out of the foreign national prison happened before his sentence end date or eligibility for early release date. Therefore, based on the evidence available to them, WCS decided they could not say Mr H was detained, deported, or removed under one of the laws listed in Annex C of the WCS rules, as set out above. Because of this, they did not award Mr H any money under the category of detention, deportation, removal and return.

33. Nevertheless, WCS did recognise the emotional impacts Mr H experienced because of his transfer to the foreign national prison and his detention there. WCS awarded Mr H £20,000 under the impact to life category for the experience he described.

34. When the Adjudicator’s Office reviewed WCS’s decision not to award Mr H under the category of detention, deportation, removal and return, they were not satisfied it was reasonable for WCS to conclude Mr H’s detention at The foreign national prison did not occur under one of the laws listed in their rules as set out above, and did not feel WCS had clearly explained what law Mr H’s detention had occurred under.

35. The Adjudicator’s Office was also not satisfied WCS had sufficiently considered whether Mr H’s release from the foreign national prison back to his original prison was prevented or delayed because of Mr H’s inability to prove his British citizenship.

36. For these reasons, the Adjudicator’s Office asked WCS to reconsider their decision not to award Mr H under the category of detention, deportation, removal and return. Although WCS reconsidered this in light of the Adjudicators Office’s advice, they ultimately decided to uphold their decision not to award Mr H under this category.

37. In their final response, WCS explained that they accepted Mr H’s lawful status was questioned whilst he was serving a criminal sentence, which led him to be transferred to the foreign national prison. But his detention at the foreign national prison was lawful because he was detained for a criminal offence and not under any of the immigration legislation set out in Annex C1a of the WCS rules. WCS confirmed once Mr H’s status had been confirmed, he was moved back to a regular prison to continue serving his 7-year sentence. They explained Mr H was never at any time detained under immigration legislation, he was detained because of his criminal conviction for crimes unrelated to his lawful status.

38. WCS were also unable to determine that Mr H’s release from prison was prevented or delayed because of his inability to demonstrate his British citizenship. They explained this was because his detention related solely to his criminal convictions. They decided the initial uncertainty surrounding Mr H’s citizenship status did not delay or extend his imprisonment and this imprisonment was not made under any of the laws listed in WCS’s rules, as set out above. Because of this, WCS did not award Mr H under the category of detention, deportation, removal and return but they did uphold their decision to award Mr H under the category of impact to life for the experiences he described whilst he was detained at the foreign national prison.

39. We considered WCS’s final decision and considerations when reviewing Mr H’s complaint, alongside the Adjudicators Office’s recommendations. We can see WCS clearly explained in their final response that Mr H was detained for his criminal conviction rather than under any of the immigration legislation listed within their rules. Whilst we can see they have noted in their considerations, Mr H may have been transferred to the foreign national prison under one of these laws, based on the information they have available, he was never detained under one of these laws. Mr H was only ever detained for the crimes he was convicted of. These crimes were unrelated to his lawful status.

40. We can see WCS could have been clearer about the legislation under which Mr H may have been moved to the foreign national prison, but his detention, as set out in WCS rules, only ever occurred because of his criminal conviction. Because of this, we have not identified any indications of failings with regards to this part of WCS’s decision not to award Mr H under the category of detention, deportation, removal and return.

41. We have also assessed that Mr H’s transfer to the foreign national prison occurred within his prison sentence, and he was detained there for approximately 16-17 days. Although we can see this was understandably a very frightening and distressing period for Mr H, and do not wish to diminish that, we cannot determine that his detention by any means extended his sentence or delayed his overall release.

42. Within the files available, we can see Mr H’s earliest possible release date (the first lawful point Mr H’s release could occur) was June 2016, and his notified release date (the confirmed release date given to Mr H) was March 2017. Mr H’s conditional release date (the legal date of automatic release onto licence) was on the same date in March 2017. We are unable to determine, based on the information available, that Mr H’s detention was extended because of his transfer to the foreign national prison as this occurred for a short period much earlier in his sentence. Therefore, we believe WCS acted in line with scheme rules and took everything relevant into account in line with our principles of good administration. We have not identified any indications of failings within WCS’s decision not to award Mr H compensation under the category of detention, deportation, removal and return.

43. It is evident WCS acknowledged the detrimental impacts of this experience on Mr H and addressed these in the award given to Mr H under the category of impact on life.

44. We are sorry to hear about Mr H’s experiences and are grateful he felt able to share them with us. Although we have not been able to reach the decision we understand he was ultimately hoping for, we hope this statement has offered some clarity around how his application was considered.

1. We have carefully considered Mr H’s complaint about the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.

2. Mr H was awarded compensation under the ‘impact on life’ category of the scheme for his experience relating to his transfer to and detention in a foreign national prison. However, Mr H felt when WCS decided he was not entitled to compensation under the ‘detention, deportation, removal and return’ category for the same events, they did not properly consider his transfer to the foreign national prison and the time he spent detained there. Mr H believes this led to the wrong outcome, which has caused him significant frustration, and as such he thinks WCS should reconsider its decision not to award him for his experience relating to this transfer and detention under the category of ‘detention, deportation, removal and return’.

3. We empathise with Mr H’s experiences and feel grateful he was able to share them with us. We were unable to find any indications of failings in the way WCS reached their decision. Because of this, we will not be investigating this matter further.

4. This is not to detract from the account Mr H provided to us, and how his experiences caused him a great deal of emotional distress and fear. We appreciate Mr H’s experience has profoundly affected him. Therefore, we understand our decision is likely to be disappointing to him, but we hope it provides some helpful explanation and reassures him we have carefully considered the points he raised with us.