Search Results for: Immigration Act 1971 6(1)

Click the case name for better results:

BB, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another: CA 19 Nov 2012

The Secretary of State wished to deport the applicant on the basis of his suspected involvement in acts of terrorism. An order for his deportation had been revoked by the respondent, but he had remained on very stringent bail conditions, since 2007. Held: The case failed on the article 6 issue because (i) the decision … Continue reading BB, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another: CA 19 Nov 2012

Regina v Nazari: CACD 1980

The CACD heard several appeals together, giving guidance as to the general principles to be applied in deciding on recommendations for deportation under the Act. Lawton LJ said that ‘no court should make an order recommending deportation without making full enquiry into all the circumstances’, and gave guidance, according to the seriousness of the offence … Continue reading Regina v Nazari: CACD 1980

Regina v Lichniak: HL 25 Nov 2002

The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate. Held: The case followed on where the Anderson case left off. In these cases the judge had noted that he did not think the … Continue reading Regina v Lichniak: HL 25 Nov 2002

Ali (S.76 – ‘Liable To Deportation’) Pakistan: UTIAC 24 May 2011

UTIAC The phrase ‘liable to deportation’ in s 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 includes, in the case of a person within s 3(5)(a), the notion of the Secretary of State’s deeming deportation to be conducive to the public good. The provision of s 32(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007, that a person subject … Continue reading Ali (S.76 – ‘Liable To Deportation’) Pakistan: UTIAC 24 May 2011

Regina (Yaser Mahmood) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 9 Aug 2001

The Home Secretary had served notice that the applicant was an illegal immigrant, and liable to deportation. An order had been made for the cross examination of the applicant. He had come to England to study, but soon dropped his immediate plans. He left and re-entered claiming an intention to start an alternative course. He … Continue reading Regina (Yaser Mahmood) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 9 Aug 2001

Waddington v Miah: HL 1 May 1974

HL Immigration – Statute controlling immigration – Retrospective operation – Penal provisions – Illegal entry – Possession of false passport – Whether statute creating offences in respect of acts performed before it came into force – Immigration Act 1971, ss 24(1)(a), 26(1)(d). Citations: [1974] UKHL 6, 138 JP 497, 59 Cr App Rep 149, [1974] … Continue reading Waddington v Miah: HL 1 May 1974

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte X: CA 9 Jan 2001

An asylum seeker had come to be detained under the Mental Health Act. The Home Secretary, having refused the asylum application, ordered him to be repatriated. Held: Though the Secretary of State could only exercise his powers of removal under section 86 of the MHA if it appeared to him to be in the patient’s … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte X: CA 9 Jan 2001

Zalewska v Department for Social Development: HL 12 Nov 2008

(Northern Ireland) The claimant challenged the rules restricting payment of benefits to nationals from the 8 latest European Accession states to those with an unbroken 12 month working record. The applicant came from Poland and worked at two authorised employments but failed to find a third. She had left her partner because of his violence. … Continue reading Zalewska v Department for Social Development: HL 12 Nov 2008

Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same: HL 3 Nov 2005

The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day following their arrival. Held: The appeal by the Secretary of State … Continue reading Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same: HL 3 Nov 2005

Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

AG, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 20 May 2015

‘This case concerns the legality of the authorisation and continuation of the detention of the Claimant, a Somali national, under administrative powers contained in sections 36(1)(a) and 36(2) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (the 2007 Act) and Schedule 3 paragraph (2)(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 (the 1971 Act) from 8 July 2010 to … Continue reading AG, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 20 May 2015

Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2): SC 19 Jun 2013

The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. The bank sought to have the direction given under section 7 of the 2008 Act. … Continue reading Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2): SC 19 Jun 2013

Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals): HL 27 Jan 2005

Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations. Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed. Lord Bingham stated: ‘While an oral hearing is most obviously necessary to achieve a just decision in a case where facts are … Continue reading Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals): HL 27 Jan 2005

Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996

(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury: QBD 11 Jun 2010

The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of the shares, the figure was 20% and soon to be reduced to 15%. It said … Continue reading Bank Mellat v HM Treasury: QBD 11 Jun 2010

Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister: Admn 30 Jun 2020

Standing may not be enough for JR The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and rendition of detainees in the aftermath of events in the USA on 11 … Continue reading Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister: Admn 30 Jun 2020

A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon: SC 26 Nov 2009

The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined. Held: The claimants’ appeals succeeded. The actual age of a party is an objective question of fact, and as such was for the … Continue reading A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon: SC 26 Nov 2009