CHK v Secretary of State: Immigration Bail Habeas Corpus Appeal

Home Cases
UKSC/2026/0039

•

PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

R (on the application of CHK) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Appeal issued

Contents

-

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0039

Parties

Appellant(s)

CHK

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the conditions of CHK’s immigration bail do not constitute a sufficient restraint on his liberty to justify a writ of habeas corpus?

Did the Court of Appeal err in ordering CHK to pay the respondent’s costs?

Facts

CHK is a Brazilian national who entered the UK lawfully in 2003. He was convicted of serious criminal offences and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in 2013. He is accordingly a “foreign criminal” within the meaning of s32(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007.

CHK is subject to a deportation order, issued in May 2017. This provides that, under s5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, once CHK had exhausted any rights of appeal from within the UK, the Secretary of State requires CHK to leave the UK and prohibits him from re-entering the UK so long as the Deportation Order was in force.

The Secretary of State has refused CHK’s asylum claim, human rights claim, and application under the EU Settlement Scheme. CHK’s appeals against these decisions remain pending before the First-tier Tribunal.

Following completion of the custodial part of his sentence, CHK was initially placed in immigration detention. He was released on immigration bail in May 2018. He remains on bail, subject to conditions which have varied over time. As of January 2026, the conditions are that he is not permitted to work, he must report fortnightly to the police station in the town where he lives, and he must report digitally by complying with Immigration Bail Digital Reporting.

On 1 September 2025, CHK applied to the Administrative Court for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is an order which requires a person responsible for a person’s detention to bring the detained person to court and state the grounds for detention. It is a fundamental protection against deprivation of liberty. As a result of its importance, an application for a writ of habeas corpus is traditionally given priority over all other court business. CHK submits that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the conditions of his immigration bail constitute a restriction on his liberty, and that the Deportation Order which purports to justify the conditions is void.

The deputy judge in the Administrative Court refused CHK’s application on the papers on 17 October 2025. CHK appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed CHK’s appeal. CHK now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal also ordered CHK to pay the Secretary of State’s costs in the appeal. CHK also appeals to the Supreme Court against the costs order.

Date of issue

31 March 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Previous proceedings

Sign up for updates about this case

Sign up to receive email alerts when this case is updated.

Sign up I agree to the Court processing my information in line with its privacy policy.