The claimant challenged the lawfulness of the policy and practice applied by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the operation of the Detained Fast Track, DFT. This is the policy for the detention of some asylum seekers, while their asylum claims are determined first by the SSHD, and then while they appeal if the claim is refused. They are detained on the basis that their claim and any appeal can be determined quickly. In summary, Detention Action contends that the DFT system as now operated is so unfair as to be unlawful, and it is unlawful at both common law and as a breach of Article 5 (1)(f) ECHR.
Held: The system (as operated) did work unfairly and thus unlawfully but only in a specifically limited way. Despite expressing concerns about the screening process and the way in which the system applied to vulnerable groups such as the victims of torture or trafficking, Ouseley J’s only finding of an unacceptable risk of claims being processed unfairly was that: ‘in too high a proportion of cases and in particular for those which might be sensitive, the conscientious lawyer does not have time to do properly what might need doing.’

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2245 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 310

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Detention Action, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 9-Oct-2014
The court was asked as to the application of the fast track detention system imposed by the respondent. The court now heard an expedited appeal against a decsion that it was unlawful. . .
Appeal from – Detention Action, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
The claimant charity assisting asylum seekers challenged the system of detaining applicants under a fast track system. The charity had succeeded, but only in part and now argued that once the judge had decided that the manner in which the DFT was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.533950

Article 1
Jurisdiction of states
Absence of territorial jurisdiction in respect of immigrant applicant who had voluntarily returned to his country of origin
Facts – The applicant, a Pakistani national, came to the United Kingdom in 2006 on a student visa. In 2009 he and four other Pakistani nationals were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to carry out acts of terrorism. They were released by the police without charge but were served with a notice of intention to deport and taken into immigration detention. The applicant voluntarily left the United Kingdom in August 2009. In December 2009 he was notified by letter of the Secretary of State’s decision to cancel his leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the grounds that his presence would not be conducive to the public good for reasons of national security. The letter also informed him that he was judged to be involved in Islamist extremist activity. His appeal against the decision to cancel his leave was dismissed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). In his application to the European Court the applicant complained, inter alia, of violations of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention.
Law – Article 1: Whether Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 were engaged turned on whether the applicant could be said to be ‘within the jurisdiction’ of the United Kingdom. A State’s jurisdictional competence under Article 1 was primarily territorial, although the Court had recognised two principal exceptions to that principle, namely circumstances of ‘State agent authority and control’ and ‘effective control over an area’*. In the present case, where the applicant had returned voluntarily to Pakistan, neither exception applied, particularly as he had not complained about the acts of British diplomatic and consular agents in Pakistan and remained free to go about his life in the country without any control by agents of the United Kingdom. Moreover, and contrary to the applicant’s submission, there was no principled reason to distinguish between someone who was in the jurisdiction of a Contracting State but had left voluntarily and someone who was never in the jurisdiction of that State. Nor was there any support in the Court’s case-law for the applicant’s argument that the State’s obligations under Article 3 required it to take that provision into account when making adverse decisions against individuals, even when those individuals were not within its jurisdiction. Lastly, jurisdiction could not be established simply on the basis of the proceedings before SIAC. The mere fact that the applicant had availed himself of his right to appeal against the decision to cancel his leave to remain had no direct bearing on whether his complaints relating to the alleged real risk of his ill-treatment, detention and trial in Pakistan fell within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom: it was the subject matter of the applicants’ complaints alone that was relevant.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione loci).

Citations:

11987/11 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 296

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.522573

Judges:

Ineta Ziemele, P

Citations:

63339/12 – Admissibility Decision, [2014] ECHR 340, 14876/12

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Legal Summary – IR and GT v The United Kingdom (Dec) ECHR 28-Jan-2014
ECHR Article 8
Expulsion
Exclusion orders based on undisclosed national security grounds: inadmissible
Facts – The case concerned two foreign nationals whom the Secretary of State for the Home . .

Cited by:

Admissibility – IR and GT v The United Kingdom (Dec) ECHR 28-Jan-2014
ECHR Article 8
Expulsion
Exclusion orders based on undisclosed national security grounds: inadmissible
Facts – The case concerned two foreign nationals whom the Secretary of State for the Home . .
Cited – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.523400