This case is reported for what we say about the exercise of the power to make directions to give effect to a determination, pursuant to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and pursuant to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ( as amended by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004); … Continue reading EA (Family Visitor, Directions, Mistake of Fact, Unfairness) Ghana: IAT 1 Jun 2005
The claimants sought to maintain their claims for asylum. They had fled persecution, but before their claims for asylum were determined conditions in their home country changed so that they could no longer be said to have a well founded fear of persecution. Held: The decision on the grant required the fear to remain well … Continue reading Hoxha and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 10 Mar 2005
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
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
The applicant was an asylum applicant. She sought to appeal a decision to stop support payments. She appealed a decision that she had no right to appeal. Held: A decision which might give rise to an appeal only occurred if the applicant had an existing right to support which had been terminated. Judges: Sir Andrew … Continue reading Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator and Another (Ahment Godan): CA 28 Oct 2003
The grant by the Secretary of State of exceptional leave to remain in the UK, did not remove the right of an asylum seeker to appeal a rejection of his claim for asylum. The applicant had the right to have his status, and the UK’s compliance with international obligation determined. Held: The granting of special … Continue reading Regina (Saad and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 Dec 2001
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 claimant, a Somali woman, had arrived at Gatwick Airport from Yemen at 10.30 pm on 29 August 1999 and not claimed asylum until 31 August (the intervening day being a bank holiday). Her reason for not claiming at Gatwick was that she was accompanied by an agent who unsurprisingly was concerned that nothing be … Continue reading Shire v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 13 Oct 2003
The applicants were subject to removal directions following the failures of their applications for asylum had failed. The decisions were made before the Human Rights Act came into effect, but the direction orders were made afterwards. They sought to challenge the directions on Human Rights grounds. Held: They had a right of appeal since the … Continue reading Regina (on the Application of Kanagasingham Kariharan and Kanagara) v Secretary of State for the Home Office: CA 30 Jul 2002
The applicant sought to appeal against a refusal of leave to appeal against an arbitration. There had been some delay for the applicant’s health. Held: Leave to appeal having been refused there was no further right of appeal under the 1999 Act. A court will not entertain judicial review proceedings where an alternative remedy subsists. … Continue reading Regina (on the Application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court: Admn 13 Dec 2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedingsThe claimant said that he had been severely beaten whilst detained in police custody for interview. Held: ‘Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values … Continue reading Selmouni v France: ECHR 28 Jul 1999
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
(Antigua and Barbuda) The applicant was employed as a civil servant. He joined a demonstration alleging corruption in a minister. It was alleged he had infringed his duties as a civil servant, and he replied that the constitution allowed him to speak out. Held: The demonstration did contravene the restriction on publishing his views. Analogies … Continue reading De Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and others: PC 30 Jun 1998
The applicant sought financial support whilst her application for asylum was considered. She was HIV positive, and had a child to breastfeed. Without financial assistance she would have to breast feed causing a risk of transmitting HIV to her child. Held: The Secretary of State should have seen her circumstances as sufficiently exceptional to deserve … Continue reading Regina (T and Another) v Secretary of State for Health and Another: QBD 29 Jul 2002
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
The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview. Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any case justified exceptional treatment, this was one. He had been held without trial for … Continue reading British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad: Admn 11 Jan 2012
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
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the Secretary of State by the 1998 Act to act compatibly with the right to respect for … Continue reading Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 22 Feb 2017
The court considered the defence available to a refugee under the 1999 Act when charged with the offence of having in his possession or under his control an identity document that either to his knowledge or belief is false, or to his knowledge or belief was improperly obtained or that relates to someone else. Held: … Continue reading Regina v Mohamed: CACD 19 Oct 2010
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 Immigration Appeal Tribunal does not have discretion, whether implied or otherwise, to admit new or further evidence without notice having first been given. The Rules explicitly required advance notice to be given, and nor was it proper for the tribunal itself to introduce evidence. The absence of a rule against such admission of evidence … Continue reading Macharia v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 25 Nov 1999
The degree of protection from non-state persecution available to an asylum seeker is a relevant factor. Where that protection was inadequate for reasons not related to the nature of that persecution, that also was relevant. It affected the issues of whether persecution existed, whether the fear of it was well founded, and whether the fear … Continue reading Howarth v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Dec 1999
The protection given to an asylum applicant is not lost by acts which might otherwise put his stay here in doubt, provided these were purely for the purpose, even if manipulative, of allowing him to stay. The test remains whether he has a well founded fear of persecution if he returned. Such behaviour would no … Continue reading Danian v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Nov 1999
The fact that an asylum seeker might not refrain from activities which would attract persecution if he was returned to his country of origin, was not fatal to his application for asylum. There is only one question to be asked: whether, if returned, he would face a serious risk of persecution. The option of internal … Continue reading Ahmed (Iftikhar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Dec 1999
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal procedure, and the applicant sought a … Continue reading Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947
The respondent introduced rules imposing fixed and penalties on HGV drivers coming into the UK who were found to have stowaway illegal entrants. The operators sought judicial review. Held: The penalty was in the character of a criminal penalty, not a civil one as proposed by the Secretary of State. The opportunities to challenge the … Continue reading International Transport Roth GmbH and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 5 Dec 2001
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
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had been made (ineffectively) to assist the dispossessed islanders, but an … Continue reading Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2): HL 22 Oct 2008
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 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
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations. Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the executive without parliamentary scrutiny by the use of Orders in Council. Statutory provision for counter-terrorism was in … Continue reading HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others: SC 27 Jan 2010
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice meant that it was not subject to control. The claimants said that the export was a … Continue reading Zagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others: Admn 29 Nov 2010
The claimant appealed against a deportation order requiring his return to Portugal. He said that when considering the effect of the order on his family, the AIT had applied the wrong test. Held: The appeal succeeded. The test to be applied was not whether there were insurmountable obstacles to his family returning with him, but … Continue reading Batista v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 29 Jul 2010
The claimants had applied for asylum, being Tamils from Sri Lanka. The applications had been rejected, and they sought to challenge the decisions to return them as a breach of their human rights. The new Act and transitional provisions created a new right of appeal, but the applicants fell outside the policy which added certain … Continue reading Kariharan and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 5 Dec 2001
Each appellant had been convicted upon their admission on legal advice of attempting to rely upon a false travel document to secure entry to the UK as a refugee. In each case a defence may have been available under section 31 of the 19 Act. Leveson, Fulford LJJ, Spencer J  EWCA Crim 1372,  … Continue reading Mateta and Others, Regina v: CACD 30 Jul 2013
The Home Secretary’s statement that he had no intention to seek the removal from this country of an asylum seeker did not operate to remove his right to persist with an appeal against refusal of refugee status. In the light of the Sad case, the appeal must be allowed to go ahead. The asylum claimant … Continue reading Regina on the Application of the Secretary of State for the Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina on the Application of Hwez v Secretary of State for the Home Department and an Adjudicator: Admn 19 Dec 2001
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
The applicant children had been detained in immigration camps in Australia. They escaped and sought refuge in the British High Commission in Melbourne and claimed diplomatic asylum. They claimed in damages after being returned to the authorities in Australia. Held: Any threat to their safety was not sufficient to justify not returning them to the … Continue reading Regina on the Application of B and others v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: CA 18 Oct 2004
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 system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right to a fair trial. The right not to give evidence … Continue reading Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown: PC 5 Dec 2000
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result would be disproportionate. The court was asked whether in order to found such … Continue reading Norris v Government of United States of America: SC 24 Feb 2010
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
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 claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the European Convention in that the decision maker was the Secretary … Continue reading V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Dec 1999
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
The claimant said he had been assaulted by Iraqi police and contractors in Baghdad Airport whilst he was being forcibly returned there, and that the defendant had responsibility. He complained that about the failure of the IPCC to investigate his complaints. Held: The Regulations specifically excluded operations under Part 8 of the 1999 Act, and … Continue reading Salimi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 1 Jul 2011
The appellant, a Palestinian, challenged the involvement of Lady Cosgrove as a judge in her case, saying that Lady Cosgrove’s involvement as a jew in pro-Jewish lobby organisations meant that there was an appearance of bias. The applicant had sought asylum, saying that she had fled Palestine after taking legal action against the president of … Continue reading Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: HL 22 Oct 2008
ECJ Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – United Nations Security Council Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations Implementation in the Community Common Position 2002/402/CFSP Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 ‘ … Continue reading Kadi v Council and Commission (Common Foreign and Security Policy): ECJ 16 Jan 2008
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
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 sought to prevent their removal and return to their countries of origin saying that as practising homosexuals they would face discrimination and persecution. They appealed against a judgment saying that they could avoid persecution by adapting their behaviour on return. In both countries practising homosexuality would risk imprisonment and in Iran, execution. Held: … Continue reading HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for The Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same: SC 7 Jul 2010
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be unlawful and leave the authority unable to meet … Continue reading Porter and Weeks v Magill: HL 13 Dec 2001
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
The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
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 . .
(Interim Judgment) The respondent asylum seekers had been rescued in the Mediterranean and taken to an RAF base in Akrotiri on Cyprus, a sovereign base area. The court was now asked whether they were entitled, or should be permitted, to be resettled . .
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 . .
AIT A decision under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that involves the invalidation of any leave to enter or remain is to be treated for the purposes of the 2002 Act as a curtailment of that . .
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .
The claimant had been detained at 11.25pm. His detention was not reviewed by an inspector until 7.45am the next morning, although it had been considered in the interim at 1.45am by an officer of junior rank. The plaintiff sued for unlawful . .
The claimant had sought support which had been refused by the Home Secretary on the basis that he was no longer an asylum seeker. The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of his appeal by the Chief Asylum Support adjudicator. The Home . .
Where an Immigration Appeal Tribunal heard a case and the judgment would depend upon an assessment of the applicant as to his credibility, a delay of three months between the hearing and the delivery of the judgment was too long. The impression made . .
The court considered the relationship between section 10 of the 1999 Act, and the appeal provisions in sections 82 and 92 of the 2002 Act and the extent to which, if any, a decision under section 10 of the 1999 Act could be challenged by judicial . .
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
There is a right of appeal against removal directions under section 65 of the 1999 Act on the ground that removal would be in breach of a person’s human rights. Auld LJ was not impressed by an argument that a restrictive interpretation was necessary . .
Each defendant appealed saying that being themselves the victims of people trafficking, the prosecutions had failed to take into account its obligations under the Convention.
Held: Prosecutors had ‘a three-stage exercise of judgment. The first . .
The court was asked upon whom falls the financial burden of providing accommodation to an eighteen year old asylum seeker who is also a ‘former relevant child’, to the extent that his welfare requires it, where the asylum seeker is not in education . .
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 claimants challenge the decision of the Home Secretary to offer the first claimant support in the form of accommodation and subsequently vouchers to purchase food and essential toiletries. The first claimant declined the offer because it would . .
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 . .
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
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 . .
The claimant, a failed asylum seeker, sought judicial review of the refusal to him of accomodation . .
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 . .
The asylum seeker had sought support from the Secretary of State. That assistance had been granted subject to a condition that she live where directed. She sought to appeal.
Held: There was no right of appeal against the condition. The . .
The defendant had had responsibility to investigate and if necessary prosecute a company suspected of serious offences of bribery and corruption in the conduct of contract negotiations. The investigation had been stopped, alledgedly at the . .
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
(Australia) A claim to refugee status was made by a husband and wife who had come from China to Australia. They said that they feared sterilization under the ‘one child policy’ of China if they were returned.
Held: There is a general principle . .
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. . .
References:  EWCA Civ 3010,  1 WLR 354,  3 All ER 231,  Imm AR 10,  INLR 241 Links: Bailii Coram: Lord Woolf MR Ratio:An appellant failed to use the prescribed form for his appeal, contrary to the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules. There had not been substantial compliance with the Rules, although … Continue reading Jeyeanthan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent: CA 21 May 1999
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
Challenges to decisions of the Secretary of State as to a decision under section 10 of the the 1999 Act to remove the Claimant from the United Kingdom and which accords to the Claimant only an out-of-country right of appeal; a decision to detain him pending his removal, and a decision consequential upon the section … Continue reading Khan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 23 Jul 2014
Judicial review of a decision to remove the applicant from the UK pursuant to Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Coker UTJ  UKUT 268 (IAC) Bailii Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 10 England and Wales Immigration Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547337
AIT ‘The appellant is the Secretary of State for the Home Department . . The respondent is a citizen of Iran . . The Secretary of State has been given permission to appeal the determination of First-Tier Tribunal . .
The applicant had been granted leave to enter the UK as a student. He challenged by way of review a decision to curtail that leave. He had taken part time work.
Held: The decision to revoke the leave was unlawful. The statement said that he . .
UTIAC (Limited Leave : Meaning) Pakistan – ‘Limited leave’ under s. 10(i)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 includes leave under s. 3C of the Immigration Act 1971. . .
Application for judicial review by the claimant of the defendant’s decision, on 8 April 2008, to remove him from the UK to Pakistan . .
The applicant sought refugee status, saying that if returned home to Sierra Leone, she would as a young woman be liable to be circumcised against her will. Held: Female sexual mutilation ‘is an evil practice internationally condemned and in clear violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’). As a practice, … Continue reading Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2005
The appellant sought asylum. He had fled Sri Lanka. He was a Tamil and feared torture if he returned. His application had been rejected because the consequences flowed from his suspected involvement in terrorism, and that was not a Convention reason. Held: Cases involving claims for refugee status under the Convention are particularly fact-sensitive. The … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar: HL 20 Mar 2003
The claimant was stopped when boarding a flight to Canada, having previously stopped in France and Italy. He bore a false Swedish passport, and intended to claim asylum in Canada. He now claimed the benefit of the article 31 (per Adimi), to defend a prosecution under the 1981 Act for using a false instrument. Held: … Continue reading Regina (on the Application of Gjovalin Pepushi) v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 11 May 2004
The court considered the duties of local authorities to support infirm asylum seekers with children. Held: The authority had an obligation to support the adult, but the responsibility for the children fell on the National Asylum Support Service. Judges: Lord Justice Rix, LCJ, Lord Justice Carnwath Citations:  EWCA Civ 535, Times 27-May-2004,  2 … Continue reading Regina, ex parte O v The London Borough of Haringey, The Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 May 2004
The applicant challenged the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal which had reversed a decision of an adjudicator and restored the Secretary of state’s decision to deport her. Held: The adjudicator’s decision was acknowledged to be proportionate, and struck a fair balance for the parties. As such it could not be overturned by the IAT. … Continue reading Edore v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 23 May 2003
The applicant had led Kurdish separatists training and leading a gang of armed terrorists. Warrants for his arrest had been taken out in Turkey. He had lived for many years in Syria but then sought political asylum in Greece, Russia and Italy, none of which countries was prepared to allow him to stay. Ultimately, he … Continue reading Ocalan v Turkey: ECHR 12 Mar 2003
The applicant sought admission to the UK. In the past he had made utterances which were capable of being racist. He claimed to have recanted, and had given undertakings as to his behaviour. At first instance it was held that the Home Secretary had failed to demonstrate an objective reason for refusing admission. It was … Continue reading Farrakhan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 30 Apr 2002