PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 59727/13) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Somali national Mr Liban Mohamud Ahmed.

The applicant was represented by Mr Z. Yazdani of Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors, Mr R. Husain QC of Matrix Chambers, and Ms L. Dubinsky of Doughty Street Chambers. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. McLeod.

On 15 October 2014 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in London.

A. The applicant’s immigration history

The applicant left Somalia with his family for the Netherlands in 1992 when he was fifteen years old. After claiming asylum, it would appear that the family were given a period of leave to remain in the Netherlands. During this period the applicant married and had a son, born in 1994. The applicant’s family travelled to the United Kingdom in 1998. The applicant initially remained in the Netherlands but on 11 December 1999 he arrived in the United Kingdom, where he claimed asylum. In doing so, he provided the immigration authorities with a false name and a false immigration history in order to avoid being sent back to the Netherlands. Although the asylum application was unsuccessful the applicant was granted exceptional leave to remain until 2004.

The applicant received ten criminal convictions over the period from 16 November 2001 to 4 August 2005. In December 2007 he was convicted of a public order offence and of failing to surrender. He was sentenced to four and a half months’ imprisonment.

On 29 January 2008 the applicant was served with notice that the Secretary of State intended to make a deportation order against him. The same letter refused an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision to deport him on 1 February 2008. That appeal was dismissed on 30 June 2008 and his appeal rights were exhausted on 8 July 2008.

B. The applicant’s immigration detention

On 8 February 2008, when the applicant had served half of his final custodial sentence and was eligible for release from prison, he was detained under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 pending the making of a deportation order against him. The Secretary of State signed the deportation order on 29 October 2008 and he was thereafter detained under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 pending his removal from the United Kingdom.

On 2 June 2009 removal directions were set for 17 June 2009. However, they were cancelled on 16 June 2009 when the applicant made an application to this Court (application no. 26023/09), which granted an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

The applicant’s detention was reviewed monthly and the review forms set out the reasons for maintaining detention. The form from July 2009 includes the following statement in reference to the Rule 39 measure: “Whilst this means that enforced removal is not possible, [the applicant] could reduce the length of time he spends in detention by withdrawing voluntarily”. A similar point features in some, if not all, of the later forms. The form for February 2010 notes that “Rule 39 ECHR is a barrier to removal but I note that FRS [Facilitated Return Scheme] is an option that should be explored to the full to expedite his removal from the UK”. Likewise, the form for July 2010 states that “[t]he length of detention is a direct result of his appeals against deportation and, although it is now 29 months, he has the real option of return to Somalia with the Facilitated Returns Scheme. This option should be further explained to the subject”. Furthermore, the form from December 2010 indicated that the applicant “could minimise his time in detention by withdrawing [the application to the ECHR] and taking up FRS which is offered each month” and that he could “end his detention by volunteering to return (with or without FRS) at any time”.

Applications for bail were refused on 9 November 2009, 21 April 2010 and 14 July 2010 as the Immigration Judges were not satisfied that the applicant would answer to any conditions set. On 9 November 2009 the Immigration Judge further noted that although the applicant had been in detention for a lengthy period, “the most recent period of detention is on account of delays with his own application to the European Court of Human Rights”.

The applicant made further representations against removal on 10 June 2010. Those representations were treated as an application for revocation of the deportation order, but on 17 November 2010 the Secretary of State refused to revoke the order. However, following an appeal by the applicant, the Secretary of State withdrew the refusal decision on 12 July 2011.

On 19 November 2010 the applicant filed a claim for judicial review, contending that his ongoing detention was unlawful. Permission was granted on 17 June 2011 but a further application for bail was refused. On 13 July 2011, some two weeks after the Court ruled in Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom (nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011), the applicant was granted bail.

A hearing took place on 7 October 2011. Pursuant to the principles set down by the High Court in R. v. Durham Prison Governor ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 (see section on domestic law below), the Secretary of State cannot lawfully detain a person pending removal for longer than a reasonable period and, if it becomes apparent that the deportation cannot be effected within a reasonable period, the detention will become unlawful even if the reasonable period has not yet expired. The applicant claimed that his detention was in breach of the principles (a) on or after 16 June 2009 when the Court granted an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; (b) on or immediately after 16 June 2010 when he applied to revoke the deportation order; or (c) at all points after the revocation refusal on 17 November 2010.

In a judgment dated 14 November 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the claim. It noted that in deciding whether or not there was a realistic prospect that deportation would take place within a reasonable time, the risk of absconding or re-offending were “of paramount importance” but neither risk could be regarded as a “trump card”. Moreover, the fact that the period of detention occurred while the applicant was pursuing an appeal or comparable judicial process would also be a highly relevant factor, especially if there was a risk of absconding or reoffending.

The court noted that the applicant in the present case had six convictions for absconding and the Immigration Judges had consistently concluded that he was a significant abscond risk. It agreed with the Immigration Judges and also concluded that the risk was plainly substantial on the evidence available. Equally, the court took into account the fact that the applicant had family in the country at the times he absconded and therefore, contrary to his assertions, their presence did not remove the risk of absconding. Likewise, the Secretary of State’s detention reviews had characterised the risk of the applicant reoffending as “high”. The court further noted that the applicant’s offences became less serious and more intermittent as time went on. However, the fact remained that while he was free he was committing offences of such seriousness as to require him to be imprisoned, including robbery and public order offences. The court also considered whether alternatives to detention could be used such as electronic tagging, monitoring by telephone and regular reporting. However, given the applicant’s history of absconding, it concluded that the alternatives would not have been sufficient and there was an absence of adequate assurances from the applicant.

At the time the Administrative Court noted that the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, was awaiting a lead judgment on returns to Mogadishu (Sufi and Elmi, cited above) and it was clear that there would be no resolution of the applicant’s claim - and the interim measure would therefore not be lifted - before that judgment was handed down. However, the Administrative Court observed that at the time the interim measure was indicated, there was uncertainty about when that judgment could be expected. Moreover, while the applicants in Sufi and Elmi would have had a reasonable to good prospect of success, a positive outcome had not been inevitable. Consequently, the Administrative Court did not accept that there was not, at the time the interim measure was indicated, a realistic prospect of removing the applicant within a reasonable time.

Furthermore, the court did not accept that by the time of the applicant’s application for a revocation order, a reasonable period had already expired or that there was no realistic prospect of deportation within a reasonable time. In addition, it observed that the Secretary of State had been entitled to take two weeks to consider the applicant’s personal situation in light of the judgment in Sufi and Elmi. It therefore did not consider his continued detention up to 13 July 2011 to be unlawful.

The applicant was granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. On appeal, he restated his arguments concerning the Hardial Singh principles which had been advanced in the court below. In addition, he submitted that the detention was vitiated by two public law errors that bore directly on the decision to detain: first, following the indication of the interim measure the Secretary of State had failed to take any reasonable steps to acquaint herself with when it might be lifted; and secondly, that the detention was maintained on the unlawful basis that the applicant could reduce the length of time in detention by withdrawing his application to the Court and returning voluntarily to Somalia. Finally, the applicant argued that his detention was in breach of Article 5 of the Convention.

In its judgment of 20 October 2012, the Court of Appeal conducted an extensive review of the circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the applicant’s appeal against deportation as well as three separate bail applications had been rejected by immigration judges, as well as the broader context in relation to the on-going litigation concerning removals to Somalia both before the domestic courts and tribunals as well as before this Court (see §§ 28 to 32). It took into consideration the fact that the Rule 39 measure applied in the applicant’s case did not involve any specific assessment of risk towards him by this Court, since at the material time this Court had adopted a fact-insensitive approach towards Rule 39 measures in respect of removals to Somalia, and noted the consequence that from October 2008 this Court had adjourned 116 applications concerning removal to Somalia. It also took account of correspondence between the Government and the registry of this Court from which it was clear that from April 2009 the Court would be granting a fact-insensitive Rule 39 measure to any applicant with removal directions to Mogadishu as well as the separate correspondence between the Government and this Court concerning the progress of Sufi and Elmi, cited above and the linked domestic case law.

With regard to the Hardial Singh ground, the Court of Appeal stated that there could be a realistic prospect of success without it being possible to specify or predict the date by which, or the period in which, removal can reasonably be expected to occur. It accepted that at the time of receipt of the Rule 39 measure in the applicant’s case, although it was not possible to say when the proceedings before the Court would be concluded, there was nonetheless a reasonable prospect of their being concluded and of removal being effected within a reasonable time. Likewise, the Court of Appeal saw no reason to differ from the overall conclusion of the lower court on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention at the time of the application for revocation of the deportation order or after the judgment in Sufi and Elmi was handed down. Lord Justice Elias dissented on one point only: acknowledging that “there is no one right answer to the question what is a reasonable period”, he believed that the period of two weeks which elapsed following the judgment in Sufi and Elmi before the applicant was released from detention was not reasonable in all the circumstances.

With regard to the second ground of appeal, the court accepted that if the applicant were able to show that the decisions to maintain his detention were vitiated by public law he would succeed in establishing that the detention was unlawful and would have a claim of false imprisonment. However, the Court of Appeal found that although some of the passages in the review forms were not very happily expressed, they did not involve any legal error. Moreover, as the same conclusion was reached regardless of whether or not reference was made to the question of voluntary return, it appeared that the applicant’s refusal of this offer played no material part in the assessment of whether detention should be maintained.

Finally, the court found that Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention added nothing of substance in the present case. In reaching this conclusion, it rejected the applicant’s assertion that Mikolenko v. Estonia, no. 10664/05, 8 October 2009 was authority for the proposition that the lack of a realistic prospect of deportation within a defined period rendered detention under Article 5 § 1(f) unlawful.

The Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal on 26 March 2013.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e1
001-171507_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
59727/13
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e2
001-171507_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e3
001-171507_a8_em3
DEM
QUASI
Somali
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e4
001-171507_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Liban Mohamud Ahmed
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e5
001-171507_a8_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Z. Yazdani
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e6
001-171507_a8_em6
ORG
QUASI
Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e7
001-171507_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Husain QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e8
001-171507_a8_em8
ORG
QUASI
Matrix Chambers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e9
001-171507_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Ms L. Dubinsky
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e10
001-171507_a8_em10
ORG
QUASI
Doughty Street Chambers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e11
001-171507_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e12
001-171507_a8_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Ms A. McLeod
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e13
001-171507_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
15 October 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e14
001-171507_a8_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
1977
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e15
001-171507_a8_em15
LOC
QUASI
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-171507_a8_e16
001-171507_a8_em16
LOC
QUASI
Somalia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e17
001-171507_a8_em17
LOC
QUASI
Netherlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e18
001-171507_a8_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-171507_a8_e19
001-171507_a8_em19
DEM
QUASI
fifteen years old
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e17
001-171507_a8_em20
LOC
QUASI
Netherlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e20
001-171507_a8_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-171507_a8_e21
001-171507_a8_em22
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e22
001-171507_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e17
001-171507_a8_em24
LOC
QUASI
Netherlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e23
001-171507_a8_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
11 December 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e21
001-171507_a8_em26
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e17
001-171507_a8_em27
LOC
QUASI
Netherlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e24
001-171507_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e25
001-171507_a8_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
16 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e26
001-171507_a8_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
4 August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e27
001-171507_a8_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e28
001-171507_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
four and a half months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e29
001-171507_a8_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
29 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e21
001-171507_a8_em34
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e30
001-171507_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
1 February 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e31
001-171507_a8_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
30 June 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e32
001-171507_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
8 July 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e33
001-171507_a8_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
8 February 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e34
001-171507_a8_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
29 October 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e21
001-171507_a8_em40
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e35
001-171507_a8_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
2 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e36
001-171507_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
17 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e37
001-171507_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
16 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e38
001-171507_a8_em44
CODE
DIRECT
26023/09
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e39
001-171507_a8_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
July 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e40
001-171507_a8_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
February 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e41
001-171507_a8_em47
LOC
NO_MASK
UK
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e42
001-171507_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
July 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e43
001-171507_a8_em49
DATETIME
NO_MASK
29 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e16
001-171507_a8_em50
LOC
QUASI
Somalia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e44
001-171507_a8_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
December 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e45
001-171507_a8_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
9 November 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e46
001-171507_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
21 April 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e47
001-171507_a8_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
14 July 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e45
001-171507_a8_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
9 November 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e48
001-171507_a8_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
10 June 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e49
001-171507_a8_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e50
001-171507_a8_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
12 July 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e51
001-171507_a8_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
19 November 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e52
001-171507_a8_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
17 June 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e53
001-171507_a8_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
13 July 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e54
001-171507_a8_em62
DATETIME
QUASI
two weeks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e55
001-171507_a8_em63
MISC
NO_MASK
Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e56
001-171507_a8_em64
CODE
NO_MASK
8319/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e57
001-171507_a8_em65
CODE
NO_MASK
11449/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e58
001-171507_a8_em66
DATETIME
NO_MASK
28 June 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e59
001-171507_a8_em67
DATETIME
QUASI
7 October 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e60
001-171507_a8_em68
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e61
001-171507_a8_em69
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Durham Prison Governor ex parte Hardial Singh
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e62
001-171507_a8_em70
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e37
001-171507_a8_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
16 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e63
001-171507_a8_em72
DATETIME
QUASI
16 June 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e49
001-171507_a8_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e64
001-171507_a8_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
14 November 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e65
001-171507_a8_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e65
001-171507_a8_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e66
001-171507_a8_em77
LOC
NO_MASK
Mogadishu
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e67
001-171507_a8_em78
MISC
NO_MASK
Sufi and Elmi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e65
001-171507_a8_em79
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e67
001-171507_a8_em80
MISC
NO_MASK
Sufi and Elmi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e65
001-171507_a8_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e54
001-171507_a8_em82
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two weeks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e67
001-171507_a8_em83
MISC
NO_MASK
Sufi and Elmi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e53
001-171507_a8_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
13 July 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e16
001-171507_a8_em85
LOC
QUASI
Somalia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e68
001-171507_a8_em86
DATETIME
QUASI
20 October 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e16
001-171507_a8_em87
LOC
QUASI
Somalia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e16
001-171507_a8_em88
LOC
QUASI
Somalia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e69
001-171507_a8_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
October 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e16
001-171507_a8_em90
LOC
QUASI
Somalia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e70
001-171507_a8_em91
DATETIME
QUASI
April 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e66
001-171507_a8_em92
LOC
NO_MASK
Mogadishu
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e67
001-171507_a8_em93
MISC
NO_MASK
Sufi and Elmi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e67
001-171507_a8_em94
MISC
NO_MASK
Sufi and Elmi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e71
001-171507_a8_em95
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Justice Elias
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e54
001-171507_a8_em96
DATETIME
QUASI
two weeks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e67
001-171507_a8_em97
MISC
NO_MASK
Sufi and Elmi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-171507_a8_e72
001-171507_a8_em98
MISC
NO_MASK
Mikolenko v. Estonia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e73
001-171507_a8_em99
CODE
NO_MASK
10664/05
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e74
001-171507_a8_em100
DATETIME
NO_MASK
8 October 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e75
001-171507_a8_em101
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-171507_a8_e76
001-171507_a8_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
26 March 2013
Liban Mohamud Ahmed
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Liban Mohamud Ahmed