The claimant was imprisoned when he was refused permission by police officers, acting on behalf of his employers, to leave the room and go upstairs in his own house. Citations:  EngR 358, (1858) 4 CB NS 180, (1858) 140 ER 1052 Links: Commonlii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Jalloh, Regina (on … Continue reading Warner v Riddiford: 12 Feb 1858
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
The Secretary of State’s published policy was that, if legal proceedings were initiated, removal would not be treated as imminent even if it otherwise was. The Secretary of State also had an unpublished policy, namely that information that proceedings were about to be initiated would be disregarded, however credible that information might be. Held: The … Continue reading Nadarajah and Amirhanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Dec 2003
Application for Judicial Review challenging the lawfulness of bail conditions (a curfew monitored by electronic tagging) imposed by the defendant during deportation proceedings under section 32(5) of the 2007 Act. Judges: Edis J Citations:  EWHC 2786 (Admin),  WLR(D) 405 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: UK Borders Act 2007 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: … Continue reading Gedi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Oct 2015
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. Held: The Court of Appeal in Austin and in Walker were right to say that there could be imprisonment at common law … Continue reading Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SC 12 Feb 2020
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of liberty as to be unlawful. Held: The appeal failed. When looking at the lawfulness of … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others: HL 31 Oct 2007
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014
The court considered the power of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and her immigration officials to impose conditions of curfew and electronic monitoring on those who have been released from immigration detention pending the conclusion of deportation proceedings. Held: Paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act did not empower the … Continue reading Gedi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 17 May 2016
(Admissibility) Whether a detention amounts to a deprivation of liberty depends upon all the facts and circumstances of the particular case Citations:  ECHR 850, 45508/99,  40 EHRR 761 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: Human Rights Citing: At HL – In Re L (By His Next Friend GE); Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS … Continue reading HL v United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Sep 2002
The minimal extent of a person’s detention by a police officer who was not exercising the power of arrest would not prevent his detention from being unlawful and amounting to false imprisonment. It was held to be false imprisonment for a police officer to stand in the front doorway of a house so as to … Continue reading Walker v The Commissioner of The Police of The Metropolis: CA 1 Jul 2014
The defendant had surrendered to his bail at a Magistrates Court. There was no usher and no security staff. Following imposition of a custodial sentence, the defendant escaped through the public entrance. It was submitted on an appeal that the defendant was not under ‘direct’ control of anyone. Held: Buxton LJ dealt with this submission … Continue reading Regina v Rumble: CACD 2003
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment and unlawful detention by the respondent in his policing of a demonstration. They had been held within a police cordon in the streets for several hours to prevent the spread of violence. One claimant had been simply there on business. Held: The appeal failed. In … Continue reading Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 15 Oct 2007
The applicant was an adult autistic, unable to consent to medical treatment. Treatment was provided at a day centre. He had been detained informally under the Act and against the wishes of his carers, but the Court of Appeal decided he should have been formally detained. Held: The appeal succeeded. His detention had not been … Continue reading In Re L (By His Next Friend GE); Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex Parte L: HL 25 Jun 1998
The Union set a picket round a camp set up by anti-logging protesters to prevent the protesters getting out. The protesters could have asked the police to escort them out, but that did not mean that they were not imprisoned until they did so. But the protesters could also have escaped at any time along … Continue reading McFadzean and Others v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union and Others: 13 Dec 2007
The Secretary appealed against a decision that the detention of certain asylum applicants was unlawful. The detention was for a limited period, but he had put forward no reason for the detentions of the individuals. Held: The Act authorised detention up to the point where a decision was made. The Act empowered detention not for … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Saadi, Maged, Osman, Mohammed: CA 19 Oct 2001
Asylum seekers had been detained on arrival in the UK, and then released. They challenged the propriety of the detention. The policy was that detention was appropriate where entry had been achieved through breach of immigration control, and did not depend upon whether the detainee might abscond. It appeared that the system worked for the … Continue reading Regina (on the application of Baram etc) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 7 Sep 2001
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
The applicant applied for asylum, but suffered from schizophrenia. He had been refused entry and detained, and then his detention was transferred to a mental hospital by order of the Home Secretary, with a view to his return for treatment in Malta. The applicant alleged that the Secretary had no power to so order without … Continue reading X v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 7 Dec 2000
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 failure to appear at an earlier appeal which was through no fault of the appellant, should not be used by the Secretary as an excuse to defeat an appeal under the section. The Secretary of State should not treat the section as a safety net or fall back. It was in fact a secondary … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Yousaf Same v Same, Ex parte Jamil: CA 11 Jul 2000
The fact that an alien was detained under the Mental Health Acts did not mean that he could not be ordered to be removed and returned to his own country. The power given to the Secretary of State was discretionary, and though the treatment he might receive was of a lower standard, it was not … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Xuereb: QBD 14 Jun 2000
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
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
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that diesel flowed into the drum until … Continue reading Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority: HL 22 Jan 1998
(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
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005
The applicant first arrived from Mauritius in 1972, and was given limited leave to enter for a few months. He over-stayed until June 1974 when he paid a short visit to France. On return he was given one month’s leave to enter, but again overstayed. In 1978 he married a woman who was settled here … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Margueritte: CA 1982
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the cost to the employer, or … Continue reading Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept because of other convictions. He was arrested for the rape after … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999: HL 14 Dec 2000
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker. Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were infirm and whose infirmity was not a consequence of their destitution, had not been excluded. Only able bodied … Continue reading Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service: HL 17 Oct 2002
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return with her. Held: The mother’s appeal succeeded. The court had to consider the … Continue reading ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 1 Feb 2011
(1) If, on appeal, an issue arises as to whether the removal of a person (P) from the United Kingdom would be unlawful because P is a British citizen, the tribunal deciding the appeal must make a finding on P’s citizenship; just as the tribunal must do so where the consideration of the public interest … Continue reading MS (British Citizenship; EEA Appeals) Belgium: UTIAC 15 Oct 2019
The applicant was a Pakistani seaman who had deserted from his ship and his presence in the UK was unlawful under the 1962 Act. He nevertheless claimed to be entitled to enter and remain as a person who had been ordinarily resident here for two years. Held: The court rejected his claim: ‘The point turns … Continue reading In re Abdul Manan: CA 1971
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants asserted that a legitimate expectation had been created. Held: The abiding principle which underpins the legitimate expectation … Continue reading Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 22 Nov 2005
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
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending treatment in the community. She said that the Francis case was wrongly decided. Held: Her appeal failed. … Continue reading O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Apr 2016
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about twenty minutes or more before being allowed to continue. An authorisation had been granted by an … Continue reading Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another: HL 8 Mar 2006
‘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
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
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
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th January 1995, although the … Continue reading Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance: HL 21 May 1997
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. Held: Article 5(1)(a) is concerned with the question whether the detention is permissible. Its object and … Continue reading Winterwerp v The Netherlands: ECHR 24 Oct 1979
ECJ The different language versions of a community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence in the case of divergence between the versions the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part. Any action affecting the right of … Continue reading Regina v Pierre Bouchereau: ECJ 27 Oct 1977
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception under the Criminal Attempts Act. At the time, their applications to be accorded refugee status had … Continue reading Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu: Admn 29 Jul 1999
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own request refused but that of his family had … Continue reading Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 21 Mar 2007
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
The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of Appeal upheld his claim saying that the use of a list not … Continue reading Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 18 Jul 2012
The petitioner sought to divorce her husband. Both were Nigerian nationals, and had married under a valid polygamous marriage in Nigeria. She claimed that the courts had jurisdiction because of her habitual residence here despite the fact that her presence here had come to be a criminal offence under the 1971 Act. Held: The authorities … Continue reading Mark v Mark: HL 30 Jun 2005
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a prison sentence. When about to be released, an order … Continue reading Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 25 May 2011
The claimant challenged his detention under the 1971 Act, now appealing against refusal of judicial review. His asylum claims had been rejected, and he had been convicted of various offences, including failures to answer bail. He had failed to report as required to comply with the deportation requirements. He had been transferred to a prison … Continue reading MC (Algeria), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 31 Mar 2010
Conditions for new evidence on appeal At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for a retrial. Held: The Court of Appeal refused to … Continue reading Ladd v Marshall: CA 29 Nov 1954
The court was asked whether under the 2002 Act it is possible to challenge by way of appeal to the AIT an immigration decision under section 82(2)(h) to remove an illegal entrant, where the ground of appeal is an allegation that removal directions for the proposed country of return could not lawfully be made pursuant … Continue reading MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 23 Jan 2009
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 claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as unlawful the respondent’s, at first unpublished, policy introduced in 2006, that by default, those awaiting deportation should be … Continue reading Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011
Consultation requirements The claimant challenged a decision of the respondent reducing the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme reducing Council Tax for those in need, saying that the Council’s consultation had been inadequate. Held: The consultation was procedurally unfair because the consultation documentation gave a misleading impression in failing to mention other ways of … Continue reading Moseley, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey: SC 29 Oct 2014
The release date for a prisoner was calculated correctly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case law required the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained too long. The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict liability, and the governor was liable in damages even though he had … Continue reading Regina v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2): HL 27 Jul 2000
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
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 applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights. Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the appellant notwithstanding that he was still subject to orders under sections … Continue reading MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 May 2010
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
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. The parties agreed that the steps taken for later broadcasts had satisfied the requirements, but disagreed as to the need for continued review, the defendant saying that … Continue reading Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office: Admn 28 Jul 2021
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not invalidate them. Held: The appeal was allowed. The confiscation orders made by the … Continue reading Regina v Soneji and Bullen: HL 21 Jul 2005
The plaintiff complained that she had been wrongfully arrested by a soldier, since he had not given a proper reason for her detention. Held: The House accepted the existence of an implied power in a statute which would be necessary to ensure the safe and effective exercise of an express power. An unconscious or drugged … Continue reading Murray v Ministry of Defence: HL 25 May 1988
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for staying. Held: The appeals succeeded. By 1969, immigration rules had by law shed the … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina: CA 23 Jun 2010
The claimants were subject to deportation, but had settled here and begun a family. An earlier concession would have allowed him to stay, but it was withdrawn. The court was now asked whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as regards the granting of concessions outside the immigration rules and of their … Continue reading Munir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 18 Jul 2012
The House considered whether the Secretary of State for Health acted lawfully in issuing guidance as to the employment of foreign doctors to employing bodies within the National Health Service in April 2006. Held: The secretary of state’s appeal failed. The fact that the guidance differentiated between NHS service and private medical care indicated that … Continue reading BAPIO Action Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: HL 30 Apr 2008
The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit the maximum amount of rent in the proper exercise of that discretionary power. The Act as a … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited: HL 7 Dec 2000
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the felony of stealing a bale of cloth, … Continue reading Christie v Leachinsky: HL 25 Mar 1947
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
(1) A defect in framing the primary condition of bail granted by the First-tier Tribunal under paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 does not render the grant of bail void. There has, rather, been a valid but defective grant of . .
The claimants said that changes to the Highy Skilled Migrant Programme were unfairly introduced, that they had effectively barred non-EU doctors from applying for first tier doctor appointments, and that the guidance could properly be derived only . .
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
The claimant sought for damages for false imprisonment by virtue of the exercise of powers of detention by the Defendant under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. . .
The claimant having been released on licence from a prison sentence refused to comply with the conditions of his licence on the ground that he was entitled to be released unconditionally. He was returned to prison. The Divisional Court dismissed his . .
The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been . .
The Secretary of State appealed an order requiring him to reconsider refusal of exceptional leave to remain. The applicant was an Iraqi Kurd. It was not possible to make immediate arrangements for repatriation after the order.
Held: The . .
The claimant sought to argue that paragraph 2A of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act does not apply to indefinite leave to remain and to challenge the decision of the defendant to suspend his leave to remain pending further police enquiries relating to . .
The applicant had had his application for asylum rejected. Pending deportation, he had been held in custody. The court had found his detention unlawful.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The power to detain in such circumstances had . .
There is an ‘administrative, financial and indeed social burden borne as a result of failed asylum seekers’. . .
An asylum-seeker held at a detention centre was not given a medical examination within 24 hours of her arrival at the centre as required by Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. It was further claimed that transfers to Oakington Detention . .
Miss Singh challenged her school’s policy which operated to prevent her wearing while at school a steel bangle, a Kara. She said this was part of her religion as a Sikh.
Held: Earlier comparable applications had been made under human rights . .
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 . .
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
The claimant sought asylum, claiming to be a child.
Held: He was not a child when detained. However, he had been detained to secure his transfer to the responsible member state under the Dublin III scheme; that it had to be established that he . .
Application for judicial review of detention pursuant to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, pending his removal to Togo, following notice of a deportation order. . .
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been allowed to rely on a plea of diminished responsibility given the changes to section 2 of the 1957 Act introduced in 2009. He said that his alcoholism should . .
The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal . .
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
The court was asked to consider a policy on the detention on release from prison of foreign national prisoners pending their anticipated deportation. Moses J granted a declaration that the terms of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 of the 1971 Act do ‘not . .
The claimants, foreign nationals, had been detained pending deportation after completion of sentences of imprisonment. They challenged the policy that such deportees should be held by default pending deportation.
Held: David J granted . .
Appeal against dismissal of claim for habeas corpus. The appellant was held in detention since August 2006 under Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 on the order of the Secretary of State. Prior to that date he had been in detention serving a . .
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the . .
Carnwath LJ said of the ‘near-miss’ argument: ‘This argument is, in my view, based on a misconception. The Secretary of State is of course entitled to have a policy. The promulgation of the policy normally creates a legitimate expectation that it . .
The action group appealed against refusal of a judicial review of guidelines as to the employment of non-EU doctors, saying that they were in effect immigration rules and issuable only under the 1971 Act. The court had said that since the guidance . .
Families had challenged the removal of their children into the care of foster parents by the respondents. The family father, who was blind, had taken to driving. The respondents appealed findings that they had acted unlawfully and in breach of the . .
The applicant who had entered England hidden in a lorry, claimed asylum, and had his claim rejected. It was said that as an Iraqi Kurd, he would be safe in the Kurdish area of Iraq. No safe means had been found of ensuring his return over some four . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been allowed to rely on a plea of dimished responsibillity given the changes to section 2 of the 1957 Act introduced in 2009. He said that his alcoholism should . .