“other things being equal, it is likely to be in the public interest to allow a defendant public authority to enforce the law (as it understands it) or exercise powers in what it considers to be a lawful manner. The weight to be accorded to this public interest will vary from context to context, but may be considerable. In many cases, the claimant will need to point to something very compelling to outweigh it. In deciding whether a claimant has done so, the court will consider both the prima facie strength of the claim and the gravity of the consequences that would follow if interim relief were not granted.”
“38. ….It cannot be lawful to detain until two or more of the Hardial Singh principles are breached, or to fix period of grace with such further breaches in mind. Once any of the second, third or fourth principles are breached, then the question arises whether any further detention is lawful. Such further detention can be lawful, in my judgment, only for a reasonable period to put in place appropriate conditions for release. 39. The duration of such a period of grace must be judged on the facts of the case. The relevant facts include the history, as well as the risks to the public. I fully accept that the risk to the public is a highly important factor, but it cannot justify indefinite further immigration detention.”