The three Tamil applicants had left the area of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers and gone to live in Colombo. It was asserted that in Colombo they had a well-founded fear of persecution because they were young male Tamils and were therefore subject to security round-ups of such people which occurred when the … Continue reading Regina v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Rajendrakumar: CA 11 Oct 1995
The application raised two issues: the Tribunal’s power to remit a case for rehearing by an adjudicator, and when an order made by a lone chairman of the Tribunal may be varied or set aside. The Tribunal only has the powers it is given. The two powers of remittal are not to be treated differently, … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 9 Apr 2001
A wife, afraid with cause of being stoned to death for adultery if she returned home, was part of ‘a particular social group’ within the Convention, and was entitled to claim asylum. Commenting on the unique complexity of such cases: ‘Its adjudication is not a conventional lawyer’s exercise of applying a legal litmus test to … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Shah: Admn 25 Oct 1996
The appellate sought judicial review to challenge an order for his return to Albania. He said that he would be subject to persecution from communist sympathizers, and his life was at risk for a blood feud. Adjudicators had variously accepted and rejected both claims, but concluded that he could avail himself of internal flight. He … Continue reading Hari Dhima v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 8 Feb 2002
The appellant asylum seeker claimed to have been persecuted as a member of his stepfather’s family, and thus of a particular social group, because members of a drug cartel had first persecuted the stepfather after he refused to co-operate with them and then also had made attacks on the appellant and other members of the … Continue reading Quijano v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 18 Dec 1996
The nature of the Secretary of State’s objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated ‘fishing expeditons’ by those seeking a judicial review.Woolf LJ MR said: ‘on an application for judicial review there is usually … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fayed: CA 13 Nov 1996
The word ‘persecution’ must be given its ordinary and natural meaning when considering an application for asylum based on a fear of persecution.Aldous LJ said: ‘Mr Ashford-Thom, who appeared for the Secretary of State, submitted that the word ‘persecution’ was an ordinary English word and it was for the special adjudicator to decide whether the … Continue reading Kagema v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 15 Aug 1996
A second claim for asylum should be accepted after the first had been rejected if it was sufficiently different. Citations: Times 02-Apr-1996 Statutes: Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 1 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.87812
The Home Secretary has no duty to show the factual evidence he had relied upon as to the safety of a deportee’s destination country.The Home Secretary need not state all information on which his certificate was based. The court recognised the need for speed decisions. Judges: Steyn LJ Citations: Independent 21-Apr-1994, Times 25-Apr-1994 Statutes: Geneva … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi and Another: CA 21 Apr 1994
Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint. Held: Rules granting the State immunities, did not infringe the applicants’ right to … Continue reading McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Nov 2001
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who were awaiting appeal. Held: Leaving asylum applicants without benefits defeated the purpose of the asylum laws. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants: CA 27 Jun 1996
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to prosecutions of those who are alleged to have assisted a … Continue reading Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of): SC 25 Jun 2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported exercise) of a common law power. The court also gave directions … Continue reading A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland): SC 8 May 2014
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods were taken lawfully. Held: The segregation was not authorised by the applicable legislation: ‘rule 45 . . (1) enables the governor … Continue reading Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 29 Jul 2015
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse. Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue of discrimination arise under article 14. However, the appendix with instructions for entry clearance officers considering the … Continue reading MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another: SC 22 Feb 2017
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The applicants said this was discriminatory and infringed their human rights. Held: Legislation which prevented marriages of convenience between aliens and … Continue reading Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 10 Apr 2006
A Brazilian mother came to the Netherlands in 1994 and set up home with a Dutch national but not applying for a residence permit. In 1996 they had a daughter who became a Dutch national. In 1997 they split up and the daughter remained with her father. It was eventually confirmed by the Dutch courts … Continue reading Rodrigues Da Silva and Hoogkamer v The Netherlands: ECHR 31 Jan 2006
The claimants challenged rules which meant that certain immigrants subject to immigration control were unable to marry, save only those marrying according to the rites of the Church of England. Held: The rules were not justified by evidence that a sufficient number of sham marriages, or that the number of such marriages had any overall … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Baiai and others: CA 23 May 2007
The claimants sought damages and other reliefs after being wrongfully detained by immigration officers for several days, during which they had been detained at a detention centre and left locked up when it burned down, being released only by other inmates. The respondent argued that immigration officers had immunity from suit. Held: Brooke LJ said … Continue reading ID and others v The Home Office (BAIL for Immigration Detainees intervening): CA 27 Jan 2005
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia whether damages for false imprisonment were allowable under Factortame. Held: The appeals failed. Chapter 55 of the EIG … Continue reading Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Nov 2019
The court considered a fear of persecution as founding a claim for asylum where a family member attracts the adverse attention of the authorities, whether for non-Convention reasons or reasons unknown, and persecutory treatment is then directed to other family members. Held: ‘his family may form a particular social group within the meaning of the … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte De Melo and ex parte De Araujo: Admn 19 Jul 1996
The court considered the entitlement to housing support of nationals of other EEA states receiving Income Support here despite their being still subject to immigration control. Held: Such EEA nationals were eligible for housing benefit. The 2000 regulations were in conflict with guidance given by the Secretary of State. Judges: Buxton, Lloyd, Richards LJJ Citations: … Continue reading London Borough of Barnet v Ismail and Another: CA 6 Apr 2006
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq. Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The question amounted to whether the officers acted under State Agent Authority within the convention … Continue reading Regina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence: CA 21 Dec 2005
The respondent resisted a claim of unfair dismissal and race discrimination on the basis that the employment contract was illegal since the claimant was an immigrant and unable to work without a work permit. Held: The Court of Appeal upheld a defence of illegality to a teacher’s complaint against a school of unlawful discrimination by … Continue reading V v Addey and Stanhope School: CA 30 Jul 2004
A family of asylum seekers with two disabled children would be destitute without ‘adequate’ accommodation. What was such accommodation? Held: The authority was under an absolute duty to house such a family. In satisfying such duty, it was adequate to place them immediately in temporary accommodation which would be adequate in the short term, pending … Continue reading Regina (on the Application of A) v National Asylum Support Service, London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 23 Oct 2003
‘These two applications for judicial review were heard together and raise the identical issue of law, namely the effect of section 9(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 upon an application for housing made to a local authority before the date when the section came into force (19 August 1996).’ Judges: Stephen Richard HHJ … Continue reading Regina v London Borough of Southwark ex parte Bediako and City of Westminster ex parte Zafru: Admn 19 Feb 1997
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal. Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had power to provide her with assistance. Though the authority had no duty … Continue reading M v London Borough of Islington and Another: CA 2 Apr 2004
The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having been rehoused in other areas had lost any connection with the area. The applicants said … Continue reading Al-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals): HL 5 Feb 2004
In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries. Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, the following should be considered. First, the claimant’s case in relation to his private life in … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar: CA 19 Jun 2003
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now subjected to a much more rigorous examination than others, and also that the arrangement put the respondent in … Continue reading European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another: CA 20 May 2003
The applicants sought to assert a local connection, having been housed in the respondent’s areas as destitute asylum seekers. Held: The accomodation was not one of the applicant’s choice, and therefore could not be relied upon to establish a local connection under the Act. The respondent’s decision to refer the applicants back to authorities in … Continue reading Al-Ameri, Osmani v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea/London Borough of Harrow: CA 28 Feb 2003
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under section 193. The authority told Mrs M that they accepted a duty to … Continue reading Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: HL 1 Nov 2001
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedingsThe court noted that Somalia (the country to which Austria had proposed expelling … Continue reading Ahmed v Austria: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 5-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings‘In order to determine whether someone has been ‘deprived of his liberty’ within the meaning of Article 5, the … Continue reading Amuur v France: ECHR 25 Jun 1996
It is a basic principle of European Union law that national law should provide effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the relevant European law right: ‘For the purposes of applying those principles, each case which raises the question whether a national procedural provision renders application … Continue reading Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout and Cie v Belgian State: ECJ 14 Dec 1995
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation. Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human rights, the court had to assess whether the, first, the objective could be achieved by some alternative, less interfering, … Continue reading Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary of State. Held: Appeal dismissed. Asylum seekers are not entitled merely because they lack money and accommodation to claim … Continue reading Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar: CA 17 Feb 1997
When dealing with the argument that there had been delay in dealing with the applications which amounted to a breach of the requirement of the Dublin Convention that the application should be dealt with expeditiously: ‘I have no doubt that these arguments must be rejected. While naturally the Dublin Convention has regard to the need … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Shefki Gashi and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Artan Gjoka: Admn 15 Jun 2000
The Home Secretary was entitled to take his own view that the French would properly apply their own asylum procedures when considering the return of an asylum seeker to that country. Citations: Times 24-Feb-1997 Statutes: Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87820
The applicant, a Nigerian, applied for judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to revoke a deportation order. He had overstayed his limited leave. He wanted the respondent to refer new material back to the immigration authorities. The respondent refused to treat this request as a new application. Held: A new ground for asylum arising … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ademola Onibiyo: QBD 24 Jan 1996
Citations: [1996] EWHC Admin 214 Links: Bailii Cited by: Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei Admn 20-Mar-1997 A Home Secretary must have evidence before rejecting special adjudicator’s findings of fact. . .Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei CA 12-Nov-1997 … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei: Admn 8 Nov 1996
The applicant for asylum had been involved in an airport bomb attack killing 10 people. Asylum had been refused on the basis that this was a non-political crime. Though the organisation had political objectives, those were only indirectly associated with the bomb attach which was disproportionate to those aims. Held: The involvement by the applicant … Continue reading T v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 22 May 1996
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as visitors for six months. Both applicants subsequently applied for asylum on the ground that having been … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah: HL 25 Mar 1999
Two Somali nationals were refused asylum and sought to challenge a decision rejecting their claim that to be sent to Spain would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1951. Held: Adjudicators are experts in their field and are provided with a great deal of background information in relation to … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same, Ex Parte Gawe: HL 15 Feb 1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits such as income support. The Act should be read so as to disallow … Continue reading Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc: QBD 8 Oct 1996
The grant of temporary admission to the UK pending an decision on his asylum status, did not create a full ‘lawful presence’ in the UK. A person seeking to qualify for housing assistance had to be lawfully present within the UK, and temporary admission did not create a sufficient status by virtue of section 11. … Continue reading Murat Kaya v Haringey London Borough Council and Another: CA 14 Jun 2001
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds save where the court is satisfied that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it … Continue reading Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others: QBD 7 Jun 1995
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK. Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is a highly technical provision which for the purposes of immigration control … Continue reading Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 28 Nov 2007
The court set out the test of what was a new claim for asylum. Judges: Sir Thomas Bingham MR Citations: [1996] IAR 370 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Balamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003 The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere … Continue reading Oniboyo: CA 1996
Destitute asylum-seekers could derive benefit from section 21. Held: ‘The destitute condition to which asylum-seekers can be reduced as a result of the 1996 Act coupled with the period of time which, despite the Secretary of State’s best efforts, elapses before their applications are disposed of means inevitably that they can fall within a class … Continue reading Regina v Westminster City Council and others ex parte M, P, A and X: CA 1997
A Home Secretary’s exercise of the right to decide if a second asylum application was valid subject to judicial review. Citations: Times 13-May-1996 Statutes: Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 8 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.87902
The jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in asylum cases is not limited to questions of law, but the IAT should exercise great caution before interfering in a finding of fact and particularly where that finding derived from his view of a witness: ‘Thus the jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is not limited to … Continue reading Borissov v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1996
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within s59. Held: Such destitution was capable of being a reason within the Act, and the appeal against … Continue reading Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar: CA 25 Jun 1996
An adjudication officer, finding that an appeal had been abandoned, was entitled accordingly to decide the matter without consideration of the facts. The absence of statutory authority was decisive in view of long standing practice. Rules not ultra vires Citations: Times 25-Sep-1998 Statutes: Asylum and Immigration Act 1993, Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 (1996 No … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex Parte Ali: QBD 25 Sep 1998
The rule which deemed an appellant to have received notice of the determination of his appeal two days after it was posted, irrespective of whether it in fact was received by him was ultra vires and unlawful. The effect of such a rule was draconian and could not be justified by reference to the Act … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Saleem: QBD 11 Nov 1999
The court was asked whether the expression ‘an asylum claim, or a human rights claim’ in section 92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act includes any second or subsequent claim that the asylum seeker may make, or only a second or subsequent claim which has been accepted as a ‘fresh claim’ by the Secretary of State under … Continue reading BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: SC 26 Nov 2009
More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of State to consider afresh further representations that the applicant was entitled to refugee … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo: CA 28 Mar 1996
The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his application with evidence of his financial means. He said that the application should … Continue reading Mandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 14 Oct 2015
Duty of Fairness to taxpayer – Written Assurance The applicant was assured by the Inland Revenue that it would not raise further inquiries on certain tax affairs if he agreed to forgo interest relief which he had claimed and to pay a certain sum in capital gains tax. Held: Where the lawfulness of the section … Continue reading Regina v Inland Revenue Commission ex parte Preston; In re Preston: HL 1984
The defendants had been convicted and sentenced for offences which under the 2003 Act would mean that they stayed permanently on the Sex Offenders’ register without possibility of a review. The Secretary of State appealed aganst a finding that the absence of a review was incompatible with their article 8 rights. Held: The appeal failed. … Continue reading F and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 21 Apr 2010
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the recovery of possession interfered with their right respect for their family … Continue reading Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise have amounted to personal injury. Pleural plaques are physical changes in the pleura, detectable radiologically as … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SCS 8 Jan 2010
The parties had arbitrated their dispute in London under a bilateral investment treaty between the US and Ecuador. The republic sought to appeal the arbitration. The applicant now appealed an order that the English High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The treaty was intended to encourage bilateral trading … Continue reading Occidental Exploration and Production Company vRepublic of Ecuador: CA 9 Sep 2005
The plaintiffs purchased eight steam turbines from the defendants. They later proved defective, and the plaintiffs sought damages. In the meantime they purchased replacements, more effective than the original specifications. In the result the railway company obtained benefits over and above their contractual entitlement. The arbitrator stated a special case as to whether the plaintiffs … Continue reading British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railways Co (London) Limited: HL 1912
In order to prevent marriages of convenience in the UK the Secretary of State introduced a scheme under which certain persons subject to immigration control required her written permission to marry and would not receive it unless they were present in the UK pursuant to a grant of leave for more than six months of … Continue reading Baiai and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 30 Jul 2008
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents. Held: The legislation must be interpreted to give effect to Parliament’s intention, even if that meant adding … Continue reading Liversidge v Sir John Anderson: HL 3 Nov 1941
The claimants said it would be wrong to return them to Zimbabwe where they would be able to evade persecution only by pretending to a loyalty to, and enthusiasm for the current regime. Held: The Secretary of State’s appeals failed. The HJ principle applied. It was wrong to require someone with no political beliefs to … Continue reading RT (Zimbabwe) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 25 Jul 2012
A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. Accordingly an order applying to both men and women was not justified and had to be … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali: CA 17 May 2001
Fairness of SIAC procedures Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this would not happen. Held: Though in each case, SIAC had considered special materials, the … Continue reading RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same: HL 18 Feb 2009
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation (Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of the day decided that he should … Continue reading Chahal v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Nov 1996
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2. Held: The SSD’s appeal succeeded. ‘jurisdiction’ within the meaning of Article … Continue reading Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening): SC 30 Jun 2010
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away were detained. Held: The detention was short, and was justified by the need for speed. The … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others: HL 31 Oct 2002
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than others, and that it was contrary to the obligations of the … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others: HL 9 Dec 2004
Bias may not be intentional The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim of victimisation contrary to section 2(1) of the 1976 Act, finding … Continue reading Swiggs and others v Nagarajan: HL 15 Jul 1999
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum. Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for ill-treatment to show that the country would not provide them with adequate protection against non-state agents. It was … Continue reading Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v: HL 26 May 2005
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. However the Ordinance only permitted detention if the period of detention was ‘reasonable having … Continue reading Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre: PC 27 Mar 1996
The applicant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to employ him to work at GCHQ, which had a policy not to employ anyone with non-British parents save exceptionally. The claimant said this was racially discriminatory.
Held: The . .
The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support.
Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and . .
The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The applicant sought to resist an order for his return to Germany, the first country of call after escaping Kosovo. He asserted that Germany was not complying with its international obligations. He said the Gashi case had created a legitimate expectation that he would not be so returned, and that therefore his application for asylum … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Zeqiri: HL 24 Jan 2002
When assessing the propriety of an order requiring an asylum seeker to be removed and returned to a third country, it was wrong to look at the processes which might be applied by that third country. The court should look at the outcome of the decision and the test laid down, namely whether that third … Continue reading Regina (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Sep 2001
The court was asked whether the words ‘by reason of the appellant leaving the United Kingdom’ in section 33(4) Immigration Act 1971, as amended by paragraph 4(2) of schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, mean that leaving the United Kingdom is merely permissive or presumptive of abandonment of an appeal, or whether … Continue reading Dupovac v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 21 Jan 2000
A country which had previously rejected an asylum application could nevertheless properly be a safe third country to which a asylum applicant could be deported. Germany is a country which would abide by its obligations under international treaties. Citations: Times 18-Dec-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 1085 Links: Bailii Statutes: Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2(c) Citing: … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Lul Omar Adan: Admn 24 Nov 1998
Asylum seeker could not claim that Germany was not a safe third country to be returned to without determination of the asylum claim here. No proper criticism to be heard of German court system Citations: Times 16-Jun-1998 Statutes: Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87865
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several months, during which time her benefits were cancelled. Held: The result was to leave the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva: HL 26 Jun 2003
The applicant was an ethnic Albanian, whose application for asylum had been rejected on the ground that he had passed through Germany. The Dublin Convention did not create rights enforceable by individuals, its purpose is to produce a system which . .
Whether an asylum applicant had a well founded fear of persecution if he returned home, is always a question of fact and degree, and could not be made a question of law. Even so where there was a clear risk of repeated rather than single beatings if the applicant returned, it was likely that the … Continue reading Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999
The applicants sought asylum. Their child had a right of residence as a European citizen. Held: The applicants could not rely upon their child’s right of residence to establish one for themselves. Judges: Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice May Lord Justice Wall Citations: Times 07-Jun-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 484 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 3 May 2006
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant? Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption … Continue reading Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations. Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of State of the claim for asylum as having been determined. There is no reference to notification. The reference to … Continue reading Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 6 Mar 1998
The House of Lords has the power to hear a case where the parties have in effect settled and there remains no lis at issue, but the House will not hear such an academic case where no general issue of importance is at stake, or the facts are particular. There must be a good reason … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Salem: HL 3 Mar 1999
An immigration adjudicator, after a hearing, had rejected the applicant’s asylum appeal, but accepted that he had left Iran because he had had an adulterous relationship; Held: The Home Secretary was wrong to depart from the special adjudicator’s finding of fact without having good reason and where adjudicator had heard evidence in coming to his … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei: CA 12 Nov 1997
UTIAC 1. If a decision maker in the purported exercise of a discretion vested in him noted his function and what was required to be done when fulfilling it and then proceeded to reach a decision on that basis, the decision is a lawful one and the Tribunal cannot intervene in the absence of a … Continue reading Ukus (Discretion: When Reviewable) Nigeria: UTIAC 12 Sep 2012
The claimant asylum seeker had been refused benefits having failed to declare his application on entry. The Secretary now appealed a finding that the decision was flawed. Was the treatment of the applicant inhuman or degrading? Held: No simple test could be laid down, and each case is to be considered individually. The appeal court, … Continue reading Regina (T) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department; similar: CA 23 Sep 2003
The Secretary of State sought leave to appeal reversal of his refusal to grant the applicant asylum. The applicant had fled Angola in several years before and claimed he would be in danger of political violence if returned. The secretary of state considered that the applicants political involvements were not such as to place him … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mpembele: CA 20 Feb 1997
