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.

Citations:

Times 28-Mar-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 301

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei Admn 8-Nov-1996
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei CA 12-Nov-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137246

Mahmood, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 16 Jan 2014

Appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of the Secretary of State to grant him asylum or humanitarian protection on the grounds that it would be safe for him to return to his country of origin.

Judges:

Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 259 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.521488

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Lumbala: Admn 28 Feb 1997

Application for leave to challenge the decisions of the Secretary of State to refuse to exercise his discretion to refer the applicant’s case back to a Special Adjudicator and the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to exercise his discretion to grant exceptional leave to remain.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 202

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137147

MS (Uganda) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 16 Jan 2014

‘This appeal raises a short point on the proper interpretation of section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002’

Judges:

Elias LJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 50, [2015] INLR 11, [2014] 1 WLR 2766, [2014] Imm AR 745

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.521035

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Dolapo Omolara Martins: Admn 29 Nov 1996

The Applicant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision declaring her to be an illegal entrant. She challenged a finding that at the time of entry she had intended to marry.
Held: It was established that she had not told th etruth, and that her boyfriend was here before she came. There was very clear evidence to satisfy the Secretary of State that it was highly likely that she had the intention to marry when she entered the country in October 1992 and that she effectively deceived the Authorities as to her intention.

Judges:

Mr Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 302

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedKhera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136850

Regina v Manchester Stipendiary City Magistrates ex parte Pal Tagger: Admn 29 Nov 1996

The defendant appealed his conviction for illegal entry. He complained that after first being proceeded against for illegal working, it was an abuse now to pursue this prosecution.
Held: No abuse had been established, only delay.

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Tucker J

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 300

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1993 6

Citing:

CitedRegina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
CitedRegina v Croydon Justices Ex Parte Dean QBD 9-Mar-1993
The applicant a 17 year old assisted the police in a murder investigation on the understanding, induced by the police, that he would not himself be prosecuted. Some weeks later, at the instance of the CPS, the applicant was charged with a lesser . .
CitedRegina v Derby Magistrates Court, ex parte Brooks 1993
Looking at the court’s power to halt a prosecution as an abuse of process, the court said: ‘The power to stop a prosecution arises only when it is an abuse of a process of the court. It may be an abuse of process if either (a) the prosecution have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136848

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei: Admn 8 Nov 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 214

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina 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 fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei CA 12-Nov-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136762

Tom Omoghegbe Ikimi v Teresa Omawumi Ikimi: CA 13 Jun 2001

A petitioner could issue a petition for divorce on the basis of being habitually resident in the UK, even though she would also have habitual residence elsewhere. In this case she had been in England for 161 days out of the year in question. Nevertheless, ordinary residence meant habitual and normal residence adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes apart from temporary absences. That interpretation was appropriate to be applied to the terms ‘ordinarily’ and ‘habitually’ resident, and that meaning should be adopted consistently in the interpretation of family law statutes.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-2001, Gazette 05-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 873, [2002] Fam 72

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 5(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMark v Mark HL 30-Jun-2005
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136125

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Begum: QBD 1986

The court declared invalid a discrete part of one of the Immigration Rules which had a discriminatory effect which operated unjustly in the cases of those against whom it discriminated.

Judges:

Simon Brown J

Citations:

[1986] IAR 385

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Manelfi Admn 25-Oct-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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.238153

The Secretary Of State For The Home Department v Shafiq Ur Rehman: CA 23 May 2000

An intention to promote terrorist activity was sufficient to found an order for deportation even though the terrorism may not be directed at any person or property in the UK. Such activity is capable of constituting a threat to national security. The concept of national security is a protean one, and any activity which could directly or indirectly threaten the UK’s condemnation and control of terrorism was capable of being a threat to such national security.

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 168

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toSecretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman HL 11-Oct-2001
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both . .

Cited by:

CitedRoberts v Parole Board CA 28-Jul-2004
The discretionary life-prisoner faced a parole board. The Secretary of State wished to present evidence, but wanted the witness to be protected. The Parole Board appointed special counsel to hear the evidence on behalf of the prisoner on terms that . .
Appeal fromSecretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman HL 11-Oct-2001
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135937

Nalliah Karanakaran v Secretary of State For The Home Department: CA 25 Jan 2000

Where the applicant for asylum could show that members of his family had been killed or persecuted by the authorities, the level of proof required that he would be under threat was not the normal civil standard of proof, but that of a reasonable degree of likelihood of persecution, and not the usual civil balance of probabilities. The same standard of proof should apply when considering whether internal relocation or flight was a reasonable alternative for the applicant. The issues for a decision-maker are questions not of hard fact but of evaluation. The person considering an applicant’s claim for asylum must reach his decision by making an assessment in the light of all the available material in the case.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-2000, Times 16-Feb-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 11, [2000] 2 All ER 449

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar HL 20-Mar-2003
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 . .
CitedHysi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Jun-2005
The claimant appealed an order to be returned to Kosovo.
Held: As the son of a gypsy mother and and an Albanian father. As such, he would face persecution if returned if his mixed race parentage became known. If order to return he would be . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135989

Regina (On the Application of Bajram Zeqiri) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 12 Mar 2001

The applicant’s case had been delayed to allow a test case as to whether Germany was to be treated as a safe country for the return of asylum seekers. Before the test case appeal was abandoned, circumstances changed so as to allow certification of Germany. The Home Secretary therefore abandoned the appeal and ordered the return of the applicants to Germany. The applicant challenged the decision saying that the delay of cases to allow the test case to proceed created a legitimate expectation which was not respected by the review.
Held: ‘ . . First and foremost, I agree with the conclusions of Collins J in Artan Gjoka and Shefki Gashi. The provisions as to time in the Dublin Convention are designed to govern the relationship between the parties to it, not to confer rights on applicants for asylum. In the second case, the Dublin Convention does not form part of our domestic law and cannot govern the manner in which the 1996 Act operates’ The Secretary’s decision was unlawful.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 342, [2002] Imm AR 296

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina 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
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 . .
Dictum AdoptedRegina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Unilever plc CA 1996
The Revenue had refused to exercise a discretion in favour of the taxpayer in the same form it had granted for over twenty years. The taxpayer complained that this was unfair.
Held: The new approach to late applications, brought in without any . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Lika) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Dec-2002
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 . .
CitedRashid, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jun-2005
The Home Secretary appealed against a grant of a judicial review to the respondent who had applied for asylum. The court had found that two other asylum applicants had been granted leave to remain on similar facts and on the appellants, and that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135255

Secretary of State for The Home Department v Azad Ullah: CA 10 May 2001

The applicant was a British citizen by descent. He sought to be naturalised to acquire the additional rights that would bring. The Act created one unitary status of citizen, but allowed for different categories. The Act did not provide any mechanism whereby a citizen by one category, that of descent could become a citizen by naturalisation. If this caused some injustice this might be a source of proper debate, but was a matter for parliament. The Act expressly recognised the difference in effect between the born abroad of a British citizen by descent and otherwise. The distinction was not to be set aside by this method.

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 659

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 42(5) 3 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135465

Akinfolarin v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 12 Aug 2016

Proceedings for judicial review in order to challenge the decision of the defendant in which she revoked the claimant’s certificate of entitlement to a right of abode in the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Nicola Davies J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2101 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.568828

TN v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Dec 2011

‘The claimant, an unaccompanied child, challenges the Secretary of State’s decision of 12 November 2010 refusing his claim for asylum and for humanitarian protection and granting him discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a shorter period than would enable him to appeal against that decision to the First-tier Tribunal. ‘

Judges:

Lindblom J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3296 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromTN (Afghanistan) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Dec-2013
The applicants had arrived in the UK as minors fleeing Afghanistan. They now challenged grant of a discretionary leave to remain limited to expire withiin one year. . .
At first instanceTN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459744

Mohan, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department: Admn 28 Jul 2009

Application for judicial review of a decision of the Defendant relating to what the Claimant says was a fresh application for asylum or under Article 3 of the European Convention, within the meaning of paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules HC 395.

Judges:

Timothy Corner J QC

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1949 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Rules, European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.368622

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ali Dinc: Admn 3 Apr 1998

The applicant had been sentenced to five years imprisonment for possession of heroin with intent to supply.
Held: In making the decision whether under the Immigration Rules, a deportation order should be made, the Secretary of State was ‘better placed to take a wider policy based view on the key question as to whether in the language of [the guidance known as] DP/2/93, removal can be justified as necessary in the interests of a democratic society.’

Judges:

Henry LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 403, [1999] 1NLR 256

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Dinc CA 15-Mar-1999
When deciding whether to order a deportation, the Home Secretary will have much material not before the courts, including as to conditions in the place to which the applicant might be deported), and he is better placed to take a wider policy-based . .
CitedSamaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.138524

Chen v Secretary Of State for the Home Department: Admn 5 Dec 2002

The court considered the appropriateness of detaing a potential deportee when he was set against returning home. The applicant had been convicted on three charges of kidnapping false imprisonment and blackmail. Goldring J said: ‘The case of Mohamed Dahmani, reference CO/2947/97, was not, I am told, drawn to the attention of the Court of Appeal in the decision of I. The applicant had been detained for a period of some 19 months (a similar period to the detention in this case) under section 2(3) of schedule 3. I simply cite part of Keene J’s judgment on page 4:
‘Miss Giovannetti has also drawn my attention to the case of Lehchibi, a judgment handed down on 21st January by Mr Justice Latham, which refers to the factor of how far an applicant has contributed to his own misfortune in the sense of delaying his removal through his own lack of co-operation. It seems to me that that becomes relevant because it may mean that whatever steps the Home Secretary has taken, they become all the more reasonable because of the problems created by the applicant himself.
The position in the present case is that in my judgment the applicant has been responsible for a substantial part of the delay which has occurred in this case.’
and ‘In addition, as I have indicated, it seems to me that the responsibility for a large part of that 19 months of detention rests, at least partly if not largely, with the applicant himself because of the lack of co-operation to which I have referred earlier.’
It seems to me I am entitled to approach the present case on this basis. Non-co-operation may not be decisive. It is, however, a relevant, possibly highly relevant, factor. If that were not so, the purpose of these provisions could deliberately be defeated by a determined applicant. It would be open to such a person simply to sit there and do nothing until return was no longer a realistic prospect. Such a person might well then disappear, having been released into the community. That person may, moreover, be somebody convicted of most serious criminal offences (as has the applicant in this case). It cannot have been Parliament’s intention that the Act could be frustrated in that way.

Judges:

Goldring J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2797 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRostami, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 7-Aug-2009
The claimant had been detained for nearly three years while his application for asylum was determined. He sought judicial review, saying that the detention was unlawful. Whilst in detention he had self harmed and said: ‘I will stay in detention for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.347816

B, Regina (on the Application of) v The Asylum Support Adjudicator and Another: Admn 19 Sep 2005

The claimant sought a declaration that the obligation on the respondent to continue to support the child of an asylum seeker when the parent had ceased to be entitled to support, continued despite the 2002 Act.
Held: The statute was quite clear. The obligation to provide support for the child under the 1999 Act continued only while did the obligation to support the parent. The application was refused.

Judges:

Michael Supperstone QC

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2017 (Admin), Times 05-Oct-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 122

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.230392