A Sri Lankan migrant has been ordered to pay the Home Office's legal costs after a High Court judge found he deliberately fabricated or grossly exaggerated his symptoms to pursue a fraudulent claim for over £7 million in damages. Vengadeswara Raw Gopalakrishnan had claimed he suffered a severe depressive illness with psychotic symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder during a detention period between September 2013 and February 2014.
He alleged these injuries left him unable to care for himself, study, or work, and required round-the-clock care for the rest of his life. Gopalakrishnan, who came to the UK in 2010, overstayed his visa and unsuccessfully claimed asylum. He was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2023.
As part of his claim, Gopalakrishnan stated he lacked the mental capacity to manage the case himself and was assisted by a woman named Reena Mathew, who he claimed provided voluntary care. However, evidence gathered by the Home Office earlier this year demonstrated that Gopalakrishnan likely never suffered from a serious mental health condition.
Inquiries and surveillance by the Home Office revealed Gopalakrishnan engaging in activities inconsistent with his claims, including driving, exercising at a gym for an hour, taking his children to school, and visiting restaurants. He was also found to have participated in a go-karting competition and worked as a delivery driver.
Mr. Justice Mansfield, presiding over the case, noted that Gopalakrishnan and Ms. Mathew, with whom he has three children and has been in a relationship with for over 10 years, acted together in the false damages claim. The judge described the waste of public resources and court time over 12 years as "scandalous."
"The claimant has deliberately fabricated or grossly exaggerated his symptoms, in collaboration with Ms Mathew, for the purposes of pursuing a claim for damages put at over £7 million," the judge stated. He added that the sums claimed were based on a fabrication and were without basis. "By the standards of ordinary decent people, the claimant's conduct in bringing and pursuing a claim for damages based on fabricated or exaggerated symptoms was dishonest."