A failed asylum seeker jailed for identity fraud is suing the Government for up to £50,000 - claiming he was falsely imprisoned when they tried to deport him.

Mouaz Al Sayed, who is living in Benwell, Newcastle, was refused sanctuary in the UK after fleeing Sudan in 2005.

The 29-year-old made two subsequent applications for asylum under a bogus name and was then convicted of identity fraud and jailed for 15 months.

For nearly a year after his prison term, he was held in a Home Office detention centre as efforts were made to arrange his deportation with the Sudanese embassy.

But now, following his release, Mr Al Sayed has issued a claim in the High Court where he is seeking compensation of up to £50,000 for an "infringement of his human rights".

Mr Al Sayed's lawyers claim there was no prospect of his deportation because travel documents were not being issued by the Sudanese embassy to allow his return.

Court papers state: "It is contended that his detention was unlawful from August 1, 2007, to July 29, 2008, a period of 364 days.

"The claimant contends he was unlawfully detained by the Home Office throughout, there being no realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time, and no risk factors justifying protracted detention in any event."

Mr Al Sayed – who has previous convictions for deception and had previously absconded – was detained under 'immigration service powers' for 364 days as his deportation was repeatedly held up.

But he claims the documentation wrangle created an 'insurmountable barrier' to his deportation and he was held unlawfully.

Mr Al Sayed says the Home Office had told him the delay was because of his 'refusal to co-operate with the Sudanese authorities,' which is denied.

A monthly progress report from the Home Office from February 11, 2008 states that Mr Al Sayed's 'continued failure to co-operate... is a significant factor in the decision to maintain detention'.

But Mr Al Sayed's claim states: "It fails to acknowledge that it was almost 11 months since the last attempt to arrange a travel document interview and more than six months since the Sudanese authorities had last been willing to conduct such an interview."

Mr Al Sayed's legal team also claim the Home Office failed to give 'complete and truthful' information during bail hearings in front of a tribunal judge.

An interview with the Sudanese embassy collapsed because private security firm G4S 'lacked resources' and subsequent interviews failed because Mr Al Sayed 'refused to travel to any of these interviews,' it is claimed.

Court papers state: "It is acknowledged that Mr Al Sayed had convictions for deception and had previously absconded.

"The offences were, however, non-violence-related and were not drug-related or sexual offences."

For more than 16 months between August 2007 and December the following year the Sudanese embassy were unable to 'carry out interviews for re-documentation of its nationals'.

He claims he did not pose a risk to the public and could have been placed on an electronic tag or curfew to 'alleviate the risk of absconding'.

His High Court claim states: "It follows that removal was not possible at any point during the detention from August 1, 2007 to July 29, 2008 and that the Home Office knew or ought to have known that removal was not possible."

It continues: "Mr Al Sayed contends that the Home Office did not act compatibly with detention instructions, however, failing in particular to review his detention in the context of material changes of circumstances."

Mr Al Sayed's legal team was approached for a comment but they said there were 'confidentiality issues'.

The Home Office said it did not comment on individual cases.