Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
ECHR ruled on the due diligence needed when detention of an applicant with severe mental health issues.

Input Provided By
Other Source/Information:
HUDOC Press Release
Referral to the CJEU
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
European Convention on Human Rights;
Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], V.M. (Nigeria) v The United Kingdom, Application no. 62824/16, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0425JUD006282416, 25 April 2019. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
Case history
Related cases:

According to HUDOC Press Release, 

The applicant, Ms V.M., is a Nigerian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Uxbridge (England, UK). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about her detention under immigration regulations. The applicant was placed in detention pending possible removal under immigration rules from August 2008 to July 2011. In 2016 the European Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention related to the period from 19 June 2009 to 14 December 2009 (V.M. v. the United Kingdom). The current application concerns 22 July 2010 to 6 July 2011. She sought judicial review of her detention for that period, which was refused by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found in 2014 that some of the reviews of her detention had been unlawful as they had not taken account of all the available medical evidence. Nevertheless, even properly conducted reviews would not have led to an earlier release. In 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. It also agreed that the period of unlawful detention would only have entitled her to damages of one pound sterling and it had therefore been appropriate to refuse to allow a judicial review to go ahead. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), the applicant complains that her detention was arbitrary as the authorities had failed to act with appropriate “due diligence”.

Country of Decision
Council of Europe
Court Name
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
Case Number
Application no. 62824/16
Date of Decision
Country of Origin
Detention/ Alternatives to Detention
Medical condition