Category: Immigration

X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 7 Dec 2000

The court considered the effect of an immigrant’s mental illness on the Home Secretary’s powers to refuse to grant him exceptional leave to enter or remain.

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 3026

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, Mental Health Act 1983, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.330970

Chen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 8 Jan 2009

The applicant for judicial review complained that he had been detained in a fast-track detention centre despite evidence of his medical condition, and despite evidence supporting his claim to have been tortured.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 116 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.280421

HB v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Jul 2008

The claimant appealed against the decision to deport him made on the basis of hs propensity to criminality. The court was asked whether a propensity to commit robberies was a sufficiently serious threat to society to allow expulsion. However it first had to asked whether it could consider this point which had not been addressed on application for leave to appeal.
Held: The court could address such a point while re-affirming the principles in Robinson. There was no existing guidance on the point at issue. The 2004 Directive made a distinction between offences of dishonesty and offences of violence. The tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the defendant posed a serious threat of violence.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Smith

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 806, Times 25-Jul-2008, [2009] 2 WLR 992, [2009] QB 536

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No 1003), Citizens Directive 2004/38/EEC (OJ June 29, 2004 L229/35)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte and Similar CA 11-Oct-1996
The Court of Appeal could only deal with an appeal on points of law arising from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, it could only allow an appeal on points of law in respect of which the tribunal had jurisdiction, either . .
Cited – Van Duyn v Home Office ECJ 4-Dec-1974
LMA Miss Van Duyn, a Dutch national, wished to enter the UK to take up work with the Church of Scientology. Art 48EC (new Art.39EC) confers rights on the individuals of each Member State to go to another MS (host . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.270703

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 21 May 1999

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 information required by the prescribed form except. The difference was in the absence of a statement of truth. The question was whether the failure to use the prescribed form rendered the application for leave to appeal a nullity.
Held: The court must look at what was the intended effect of non-compliance, not just whether the requirement was expressed to be mandatory.
The court discussed the conventional distinction between directory and mandatory requirements. The position is complex and the legislation should be judged as to what were intended to be the consequences of the non-compliance. This is assessed on a consideration of the language of the legislation against the factual circumstances of the non-compliance. Procedural requirements are designed to further the interests of justice and any consequence which would achieve a result contrary to those interests should be treated with considerable caution: ‘Because of what can be the very undesirable consequences of a procedural requirement which is made so fundamental that any departure from the requirement makes everything that happens thereafter irreversibly a nullity it is to be hoped that provisions intended to have this effect will be few and far between.’
The starting point is that where the word ‘shall’ is used ‘the requirement is never intended to be optional’.
Lord Woolf MR said: ‘I suggest that the right approach is to regard the question of whether a requirement is directory or mandatory as only at most a first step. In the majority of cases there are other questions which have to be asked which are more likely to be of greater assistance than the application of the mandatory/directory test: The questions which are likely to arise are as follows:
(a) Is the statutory requirement fulfilled if there has been substantial compliance with the requirement and, if so, has there been substantial compliance in the case in issue even though there has not been strict compliance? (The substantial compliance question.)
(b) Is the non-compliance capable of being waived, and if so, has it, or can it and should it be waived in this particular case? (The discretionary question.) I treat the grant of an extension of time for compliance as a waiver.
(c) If it is not capable of being waived or is not waived then what is the consequence of the non-compliance? (The consequences question.)
Which questions arise will depend upon the facts of the case and the nature of the particular requirement. The advantage of focusing on these questions is that they should avoid the unjust and unintended consequences which can flow from an approach solely dependent on dividing requirements into mandatory ones, which oust jurisdiction, or directory, which do not. If the result of non-compliance goes to jurisdiction it will be said jurisdiction cannot be conferred where it does not otherwise exist by consent or waiver.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Judge and May LJJ

Citations:

Times 26-May-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 354, [1999] EWCA Civ 3010, [1999] 3 All ER 231, [2000] Imm AR 10, [1999] INLR 241

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum (Appeals) Procedure Rules 1993 (1993 No 1661) 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited in – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Appeal from – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex Parte Jeyeanthan Admn 3-Apr-1998
An appeal by the Home Secretary against a ruling that he had to use the same prescribed form as would be used by the asylum seeker. The use of a letter which omitted a substantial and important declaration was invalid. Lord Woolf MR made plain the . .
Applied – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Saad and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Dec-2001
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 . .
Cited – Rydqvist v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 24-Jun-2002
The applicant had applied to the tribunal with regard to his entitlement to job-seeker’s allowance, but withdrew his application before the hearing. The tribunal had nevertheless heard the case and held against him. He appealed that finding. The . .
Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Cited – Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .
Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police CA 19-May-2005
Mr Seal noisily objected to a neighbour blocking in his car. Police were called who took him into custody under the 1983 Act. He was released several days later, and eventually sought damages for his wrongful treatment. He had failed to first seek . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
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 . .
Cited – Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another CA 27-Oct-2005
The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate.
Held: The absence of . .
Cited – Bentham, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Wandsworth Admn 7-Feb-2006
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, saying that he had been wrongfully committed to the crown court under the 1998 Act. The note referred only to a ‘conspiracy without further specification. The crown court had remitted him to the . .
Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
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 . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 HL 14-Dec-2000
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 . .
Cited – North Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Delayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .
Cited – Rochdale Borough Council v Dixon CA 20-Oct-2011
The defendant tenant had disputed payment of water service charges and stopped paying them. The Council obtained a possession order which was suspended on payment or arrears by the defendant at andpound;5.00. The tenant said that when varying the . .
Cited – Trail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council SC 18-Mar-2015
Objection had been made that a plan, used to register a right of way before it would disappear if un-registered, was to the wrong scale and that therefore the application was ineffetive.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed. The plan was too . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.136039

Gnanam v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 30 Apr 1999

Appeal from dismissed of the appeal from the refusal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to grant his application for asylum. The point of importance which is said to arise relates to what was said by this Court in Robinson [1997] Imm AR 94. In deciding whether it would be reasonable to expect the claimant to relocate internally (the so-called ‘internal flight alternative’) can the decision maker consider the cumulative effect of a number of factors?

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1322, [1999] INLR 219, [1999] Imm AR 436

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.146237

AZ (Syria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 27 Jan 2017

AZ, a refugee, had been refused general travel document for reasons of national security. The Court as now asked whether he was entitled to be told of the concerns in advance of defendant’s decision.
Burnett LJ referred to a ‘sliding scale for the purposes of disclosure.’

Judges:

Jackson, Underhill, Burnett LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 35, [2017] 4 WLR 94, [2017] WLR(D) 48

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 41 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, European

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.573603

Farah and Others v British Airways and Another: CA 6 Dec 1999

The Court was asked whether the Home Office can be liable for the loss caused to immigrants as a result of an immigration liaison officer negligently and wrongly advising an airline that the immigrants did not have the required documentation to obtain access to this country, if, as a result of this the airline did not fly the immigrants to this country.
It is not appropriate to strike out a claim in an area of developing jurisprudence, since, in such areas, decisions as to novel points of law should be based on actual findings of fact

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR

Citations:

Times 26-Jan-2000, [1999] EWCA Civ 3052

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barrett v London Borough of Enfield HL 17-Jun-1999
The claimant had spent his childhood in foster care, and now claimed damages against a local authority for decisions made and not made during that period. The judge’s decision to strike out the claim had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Cited by:

Cited – CXZ v ZXC QBD 26-Jun-2020
Malicious Prosecution needs court involvement
W had made false allegations against her husband of child sex abuse to police. He sued in malicious prosecution. She applied to strike out, and he replied saying that as a developing area of law a strike out was inappropriate.
Held: The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.465063

Regina (on the application of Ouji) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: 2002

The court was concerned to interpret s122(4) of the 1999 Act relating to ‘essential living needs’. Basic support and basic essential needs by reference to non-disabled asylum seekers would be provided by the Secretary of State under the 1999 Act, but that any additional support needed as a result of disabilities would be provided by local authorities under s21 of the 1948 Act.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1839 (Admin

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of A) v National Asylum Support Service, London Borough of Waltham Forest CA 23-Oct-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing, Immigration

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187179

Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Bellow: 25 May 1995

Citations:

May 25, 1995 unreported

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Adopted – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Owalabi QBD 3-Jan-1996
The Home Secretary may evaluate fresh material himself under the section, without always referring the case back to the adjudicator. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.181283

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Bari: 1986

Citations:

[1986] Imm AR 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McPherson v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Dec-2001
The appellant had entered the UK as a visitor on regular occasions and latterly had used false passport. She was then convicted of supplying Class A drugs, and ordered to be deported. She had children who also were in the UK, and did not wish to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.183277

Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Khaldoon: 8 Nov 1995

Citations:

November 8, 1995 unreported

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Adopted – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Owalabi QBD 3-Jan-1996
The Home Secretary may evaluate fresh material himself under the section, without always referring the case back to the adjudicator. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.181282

PR (Sri Lanka) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 11 Aug 2011

The claimants renewed their applications for leave to appeal against decisions of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber – possible test cases on the application of the ‘second-tier appeals test’ – refused

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Sir Anthony May P, Carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2012] 1 WLR 73, [2011] EWCA Civ 988, [2011] Imm AR 904, [2011] CP Rep 47, [2012] INLR 92

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.442717

Regina v Spura: 3 Jan 1988

The court considered the test for ordering deportation of an EU National after completion of his sentence of imprisonment, applying Bouchereau and Nazari: ‘. . in the case of Escauriaza . . the Court . . concluded, accepting a submission from an amicus experienced in these matters, that EEC law simply mirrored the law and practice of the United Kingdom. On that basis, one goes back to the test originally laid down in Nazari . . where the test was said to be ‘does the potential detriment to this country justify the recommendation for deportation of this Appellant?…The overall test, as distilled by the European Court in Bouchereau is whether [a full enquiry into the circumstances] reveals that a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy has affected the fundamental interests of society.’

Citations:

(1988) 10 Crim App R (S) 376

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Nazari CACD 1980
The CACD heard several appeals together, giving guidance as to the general principles to be applied in deciding on recommendations for deportation under the Act. Lawton LJ said that ‘no court should make an order recommending deportation without . .
Cited – Regina v Escauriaza CACD 2-Jan-1988
For all practical purposes the tests for deportation of an EU national after completion of a sentence of imprisonment are the same in Nazari and Bouchereau: ‘Thus under EEC Law a valid recommendation for deportation can only be made if at least two . .
Cited – Regina v Pierre Bouchereau ECJ 27-Oct-1977
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Kluxen CACD 14-May-2010
The court considered the occasions on which a court should recommend deportation after completion of a prison sentence and how this might differ between EU and non-EU nationals.
Held: Since the 2007 it is not appropriate to recommend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Immigration

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.415080

MA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 27 Jul 2009

The claimant appealed against refusal of leave to enter and cancelling his leave to remain. He had made his claim on human rights grounds, saying that the refusal would split him from his wife. He had been told that he would have to renew his application from abroad.
Held: Where a case was properly founded on Article 8 grounds, it was not only cases involving children where proper consideration was to be give to allowing an appeal to go ahead in this country and without having to apply from abroad, and Chikwamba should not be read to create such a restriction.

Judges:

Jacob LJ, Sullivan LJ, Patten LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 953, Times 05-Oct-2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention of Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had fled Zimbabwe. Though her asylum application was refused, she was not returned for the temporary suspension of such orders to Zimbabwe. In the meantime she married and had a child. She now appealed an order for her removal citing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.375161

JB (India) and others v Entry Clearance Officer: CA 11 Feb 2009

‘The three appellants are siblings. They appealed against the respondent’s refusal to issue them with entry clearance to settle in the United Kingdom with their mother who is their sponsor. In a determination their appeals were dismissed under the Immigration Rules by Immigration Judge Parker, but allowed on Article 8 grounds.’

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 234

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.324646

Z and T v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 Feb 2006

The applicants were Christian Pakistanis. Their asylum claims having failed, they feared that if returned to Pakistan, they would be persecuted, and asked for their article 9 rights, saying that the flagrant denial test should not be applied, as this would fail to respect the primacy of the applicants’ religious rights.
Held: The argument was rejected. Even assuming that article 9 was capable of being engaged in the case of the expulsion of an individual by a Contracting State, the applicants had not shown that they were personally at risk or were members of such a vulnerable or threatened group, or in such a precarious position as Christians, as might disclose a flagrant violation of article 9 of the Convention. However, only very limited assistance was to be found in article 9: ‘Otherwise it would be imposing an obligation on Contracting States effectively to act as indirect guarantors of freedom of worship for the rest of the world. If, for example, a country outside the umbrella of the Convention were to ban a religion but not impose any measure of persecution, prosecution, deprivation of liberty or ill-treatment, the court doubts that the Convention could be interpreted as requiring a Contracting State to provide the adherents of that banned sect with the possibility of pursuing that religion freely and openly on their own territories. While the court would not rule out the possibility that the responsibility of the returning state might in exceptional circumstances be engaged under article 9 of the Convention where the person concerned ran a real risk of flagrant violation of that article in the receiving state, the court shares the view of the House of Lords in the Ullah case that it would be difficult to visualise a case in which a sufficiently flagrant violation of article 9 would not also involve treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention.’

Citations:

Unreported, 28 February 2006, 27034/05, [2006] ECHR 1177

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.277276

SN (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 21 Jan 2009

Appeal against a reconsideration concluding that the Immigration Judge at the original appeal had made no error of law in his decision when he rejected the appellant’s asylum and human rights appeals and claim for humanitarian protection, and directed that the Immigration Judge’s determination of the appeal should stand.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 181

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.317973

K, Regina v: CACD 14 Aug 2008

The defendant had been called to the bar but was not within any chambers and did not have a practising certificate and was not subject to the Bar’s disciplinary code. He was prosecuted for providing immigration and advice service and advice whilst unauthorised.
Held: The intention of the Act was to ensure that only those subject to professional regulation provided immigration services. The defendant did not fall within that category. Even so, the defendant’s bona fides had not been questioned, and the court emphasised that it saw no purpose in the continuation of the present proceedings.

Judges:

Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Andrew Smith and Judge Rogers, QC

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 1900, Times 08-Oct-2008, [2009] 1 All ER 510, [2009] 1 WLR 694, [2009] 1 Cr App Rep 9, [2009] PNLR 6

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Legal Professions, Immigration

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.272558

Vellore, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 8 Mar 2013

The claimant sought permission to review a decision of the defendant refusing to reconsider a decision to grant the claimant three years leave to remain and refusing to grant indefinite leave to remain. He seeks an order quashing that decision and a declaration that any reasonable exercise of the decision would have led to the grant of indefinite leave to remain.

Judges:

Jarman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 724 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491910

HBH, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 6 May 2009

The claimant challenged the procedures used to decide his age after he arrived in the UK and was prosecuted for immigration offences.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 928 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Crime, Immigration

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.341856

Ogilvy, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 3 Aug 2007

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 alleged criminal activity.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2301 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 Sch2 2A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.260000

MMH, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 7 Sep 2007

The applicants challenged their continued detention pending their return to Iraq.
Held: Beatson J said: ‘In the present case there is a significant risk of absconding, but a risk of re-offending which the defendant accepts is not very high. Leaving aside the second claimant’s mental condition, I would hold that the period of their detention (thirteen months to date for the first claimant, and nine months for the second claimant) is, despite its length, in the circumstances reasonably necessary for the purposes of the deportation order and so lawful. This degree of risk of absconding in my judgment, together with the claimants’ refusal to go voluntarily, so that their detention was a product of their own making, justified the defendant a substantially longer period of time within which to arrange removal.’

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2134 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jan-2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.259650

Brown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 18 Aug 2003

Application for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse the claimant’s asylum and human rights claims and to certify those claims for the purposes of section 94 of The Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2045 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.186259

Regina 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 view on the key question as to whether removal can be justified as ‘necessary in the interests of a democratic society’.

Citations:

[1999] INLR 256, [1999] EWCA Civ 990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – M v the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Feb-2003
The applicant had been given indefinite leave to remain in England, but was later convicted of indecent assault, and recommended for deportation. On appeal the court said that the order for deportation was disproportionate. After serving his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145905

Secretary of State for Home Department v Arif: CA 17 Feb 1999

Depending always on the particular facts of the case, there might well be ‘an evidential burden on the Secretary of State to establish that [the asylum seeker] could safely be returned home.’

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 808, [1999] Imm AR 327

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hoxha and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Mar-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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145723

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 9 Apr 2001

The application raised two issues: the Tribunal’s power to remit a case for rehearing by an adjudicator, and when an order made by a lone chairman of the Tribunal may be varied or set aside. The Tribunal only has the powers it is given. The two powers of remittal are not to be treated differently, and there is no remittal power involving a Tribunal delegating to the adjudicator its function of deciding the appeal from the adjudicator. Remittal is never a final determination under s 9 of the 1993 Act

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 261

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 17(2), Immigration Act 1971 19, 20, 22, Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984, Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Taj Bibi v Entry Clearance Officer, Islamabad 1977
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.140316

Operation Holdings Ltd (T/A Goldcare Homes), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 3 Sep 2019

Appeal from revocation of sponsorship licence

Judges:

Miss Alison Foster QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3884 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health Professions

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651350

Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 21 Dec 2017

The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under sections 40 and 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981. The respondent had now asked that the appeals be allowed by consent.
Held: His reasons were largely been adopted by the Court.
The conflicting decisions had been difficult to reconcile and created uncertainty, and Akhtar and Bibi were overruled.
The Appellants were British citizens by naturalisation under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 and that that citizenship remained valid unless and until a formal deprivation order is made pursuant to section 40(3) of the 1981 Act.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 82, [2018] 2 All ER 471, [2018] INLR 279, [2018] Imm AR 699, [2018] 1 WLR 221, UKSC 2016/0209

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hysaj and Others, Regina (On The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Nov-2015
Each of the three applicamts having been found to have lied in order to obtain British Nationality, now appealed against a decision that they were not in fact Britsh citizens. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sultan Mahmood CA 1978
The applicant appealed refusal of his writ of habeas corpus. He had been arrested pending removal to Pakistan. He said that he had been registered a British Citizen under the 1948 Act. Whilst in Pakistan he had substituted his own photograph for . .
Appeal from – Hysaj v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
Applications for extensions of time to file an appeal should be taken the same as for applications for relief from sanctions, and should attract the same rigorous approach. There is no good reason to have a different approach for public law cases. . .
Overruled – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Parvaz Akhtar CA 1981
The applicant appealed refusal of a writ of habeas corpus. He was to be removed as an illegal immigrant. He had entered claiming to be registered as a British citizen but under somebody else’s identity.
Held: The Secretary of State had had no . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ejaz CA 7-Dec-1993
The question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to treat a woman, who had obtained naturalisation as the wife of a British citizen, as an illegal entrant on the basis that her husband later turned out not in fact to be a British . .
Overruled – Bibi and others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka CA 18-Jul-2007
The deceased had come to live in the UK and obtain citizenship under somebody else’s identity. After his death his wife and children sought clearance to come to live here.
Held: Her appeal failed. The residence of her late husband was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.601874

Hysaj and Others, Regina (On The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 26 Nov 2015

Each of the three applicamts having been found to have lied in order to obtain British Nationality, now appealed against a decision that they were not in fact Britsh citizens.

Judges:

Kitchin, Floyd, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1195, [2015] WLR(D) 482, [2016] 1 WLR 673

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 1(2) 3(1)(b), British Nationality Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hysaj v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
Applications for extensions of time to file an appeal should be taken the same as for applications for relief from sanctions, and should attract the same rigorous approach. There is no good reason to have a different approach for public law cases. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under . .
Cited – London Borough of Hamlets v Al Ahmed QBD 26-Mar-2019
The respondent had requested a review of his housing priority need. He had applied to the Authority under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Act, the Council decided that he was not in priority need. The solicitors then acting for him requested . .
Cited – Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 30-Jan-2020
‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) against an adverse review decision under the homelessness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.555005

AHK and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 7 Jun 2013

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1426 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.510720