Man who claimed £7m for fake injury from Home Office exposed by go-karting video

Man who claimed £7m for fake injury from Home Office exposed by go-karting video Mr Justice Mansfield stated that after the Home Office presented the surveillance recordings, Mr Gopalakrishnan could provide ‘no explanation for the inconsistencies’ - Bookmark Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Already a member? Log in A Sri Lankan man who launched a multimillion-pound legal challenge against the Home Office over alleged injuries suffered in immigration detention was filmed driving, working out at a gym and competing in go-karting while insisting he required constant care, a High Court judge has stated. In a judgment delivered on Friday, Mr Justice Mansfield ruled that Vengadeswara Raw Gopalakrishnan had "deliberately fabricated" claims that a "serious and long-term psychiatric injury" sustained while held between September 2013 and February 2014 had rendered him unable to work or leave his residence unaccompanied. Although Mr Gopalakrishnan pursued compensation exceeding £7 million from the government department, the Home Office produced evidence earlier this year demonstrating that he "does not now suffer from a serious mental health condition, and likely never did". The judge noted that the department's submissions included video footage showing Mr Gopalakrishnan behind the wheel of a car and completing an hour-long gym session. Mr Gopalakrishnan had maintained that he lacked the requisite mental capacity to manage the lawsuit himself, receiving assistance from Reena Mathew, who was presented as his voluntary carer. However, evidence brought to light revealed that Mr Gopalakrishnan and Ms Mathew had been partners for over a decade and shared three children, leading Mr Justice Mansfield to conclude that the pair "acted together" to advance the false compensation claim. Describing the 12-year strain on court time and public funds as "scandalous", the judge instructed Mr Gopalakrishnan to cover all of the Home Office’s legal expenses incurred in defending the action. He observed: "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 sums claimed were based on a fabrication and were without basis. He continued: "The story of the complete destruction of the claimant’s life as an independent adult would be tragic, and the story of Ms Mathew’s devoted care for him would be inspiring, if any of it were true." Mr Justice Mansfield noted that Mr Gopalakrishnan entered the UK in 2010 before overstaying his student visa when it expired in 2012. An asylum application filed the following year proved unsuccessful, though he was later released from immigration detention on medical grounds and granted indefinite leave to remain in 2023. He subsequently issued legal proceedings over his detention, falsely alleging that he suffered from a severe depressive illness with psychotic symptoms until 2023, alongside ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder. This allegedly left him unable to care for himself, study or work, and in need of round-the-clock care for the rest of his life. Ms Mathew acted as his "litigation friend" in the claim—someone designated to make court decisions on behalf of individuals who lack the mental capacity to handle proceedings themselves. In April, she informed the court that Mr Gopalakrishnan’s health had shown only an "ever so slightly" minor improvement and that he still "requires a lot of day-to-day support". She further claimed he was "unable to prepare his own meals, leave the house alone, attend appointments, manage his finances or arrange any key aspects of his life such as housing, medical care and benefits". However, the judge detailed how the Home Office instructed "inquiry agents" to observe and film Mr Gopalakrishnan in public places between May and June this year. Investigators spotted him taking his children to school and dining at restaurants, while online records revealed he had taken part in a go-karting competition. Departmental records also confirmed he was working as a delivery driver. Mr Justice Mansfield stated that after the Home Office presented the surveillance recordings, Mr Gopalakrishnan could provide "no explanation for the inconsistencies". The judge concluded that Mr Gopalakrishnan "knowingly participated" in providing false accounts and "feigned behaviour" to "obtain money from the Home Office", adding that he and Ms Mathew "deliberately exaggerated" his symptoms. He said: "It is clear to me that the claimant’s exaggeration of his symptoms has been deliberate, calculated and for the purposes of gain from these proceedings. "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."