Category: Immigration

Nare (Evidence By Electronic Means) Zimbabwe: UTIAC 22 Nov 2011

UTIAC Complaint was made by an allegation that a judge of the First-tier Tribunal had too readily allowed a witness to give evidence by telephone.
Held: The decision whether to allow evidence to be given by electronic means is a judicial one, requiring consideration of the need to do so, the arrangements at the distant site, and the ability to assess such evidence, by reference to guidance such as that set out here.
Departure from the usual model of oral evidence given directly in the courtroom was likely to reduce the quality of evidence and the ability both of the parties to test it and of the judge to assess it. Its guidance, given in para 21, included:
(a) that the application should be made and determined well before the substantive hearing;
(b) that the application should not only explain the reason for evidence to be given on screen and indicate the arrangements provisionally made at the distant site but also include an undertaking to be responsible for any expenses incurred;
(c) that, were the evidence to be given from abroad, the applicant should be able to inform the tribunal that the foreign state raised no objection to the giving of evidence to a UK tribunal from within its jurisdiction;
(d) that the applicant should satisfy the tribunal that events at the distant site were, so far as practicable, within its observation and control, that the evidence would be given there in formal surroundings and be subject to control by appropriate officials and that nothing could happen off camera which might cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence; and
(e) that a British Embassy or High Commission might be able to provide suitable facilities.

Judges:

Ockelton VP, Brubb UTJ, Holmes IJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 443 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Immigration

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.448413

MH v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: SCS 30 Aug 2011

MH sought the reduction of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse his claim under Article 8 of the Convention for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Beckett QC J

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 143

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.443602

Aitouaret, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 29 Oct 2010

The court was asked as to the correlation between the powers of the Secretary of State for Justice to release a prisoner on home detention curfew and the powers of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to detain a person under section 36 of the UK Borders Act 2007.

Judges:

Kay QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3136 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Immigration

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.427007

Maslov v Austria: ECHR 23 Jun 2008

(Grand Chamber) The applicant came lawfully to Austria when 6. He committed a large number of offences when he was 14 and 15, and had been sentenced to imprisonment. He complained of a later decision to deport him.
Held: The court said: ‘ The Court would stress that while the criteria which emerge from its case-law and are spelled out in the Boultif and Uner judgments are meant to facilitate the application of Article 8 in expulsion cases by domestic courts, the weight to be attached to the respective criteria will inevitably vary according to the specific circumstances of each case. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that where, as in the present case, the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 pursues, as a legitimate aim, the ‘prevention of disorder or crime’ . . the above criteria ultimately are designed to help evaluate the extent to which the applicant can be expected to cause disorder or to engage in criminal activities.
In a case like the present one, where the person to be expelled is a young adult who has not yet founded a family of his own, the relevant criteria are:
– the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant;
– the length of the applicant’s stay in the country from which he or she is to be expelled;
– the time elapsed since the offence was committed and the applicant’s conduct during that period;
– the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination.
The Court would also clarify that the age of the person concerned can play a role when applying some of the above criteria. For instance, when assessing the nature and seriousness of the offences committed by an applicant, it has to be taken into account whether he or she committed them as a juvenile or as an adult (see, for instance, Moustaquim v. Belgium, judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no.193, p.19, ss 44, and Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, ss 35, 22 April 2004).
In turn, when assessing the length of the applicant’s stay in the country from which he or she is to be expelled and the solidity of the social, cultural and family ties with the host country, it evidently makes a difference whether the person concerned had already come to the country during his or her childhood or youth, or was even born there, or whether he or she only came as an adult. This tendency is also reflected in various Council of Europe instruments, in particular in Committee of Minister Recommendations Rec (2001)15 and Rec (2002)4 . .
Although Article 8 provides no absolute protection against expulsion for any category of aliens (see Uner, cited above, ss 55), including those who were born in the host country or moved there in their early childhood, the Court has already found that regard is to be had to the special situation of aliens who have spent most, if not all, their childhood in the host country, were brought up there and received their education there (see Uner, ss 58 in fine).
In short, the Court considers that for a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or the major part of his or her childhood and youth in the host country very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion.’

Judges:

Jean-Paul Costa, P

Citations:

[2008] ECHR 546, 1638/03, [2009] INLR 47

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Maslov v Austria ECHR 22-Mar-2007
. .

Cited by:

Cited – MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-May-2010
The applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights.
Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – Ogundimu (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria UTIAC 8-Feb-2013
UTIAC 1 The expectation is that it will be an exceptional case in which permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal should be granted where the lodging of the application for permission is more than 28 days out of . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
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.420795

OQ (India) v Entry Clearance Officer: CA 11 Jun 2009

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 817

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Leave – OQ (India) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; SM (India) v Same CA 25-Nov-2009
The claimants sought a right of entry and of residence as dependants of EU citizens. They had been refused by the entry clearance officer.
Held: The test of the status of a dependent member of a worker’s family was the result of a factual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.381570

YA, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Health: CA 30 Mar 2009

The applicant was a failed asylum seeker who sought judicial review of a decision of an NHS Trust not to provide him with free care. The court was asked for guidance as to whether a health trust had a discretion to provide free health care to a patient who was not ordinarily resident in the UK.
Held: An NHS trust did have a discretion to grant or withhold treatment for such patients. Services provided under the applicable health scheme should normally be provided free of charge. A failed asylum seeker could not ordinarily claim to be ‘ordinarily resident’. There remained a difference between lawful presence in the UK and lawful residence. Any free treatment was to be provided as an indulgence and not in satisfaction of a right. A hospital’s discretion to assist did not create a duty. The official guidance was however unlawful in that it did not correctly describe the duty to those who required urgent assistance, nor the extent of the discretion it had toward those requiring non-urgent assistance.
‘the statute in need of construction is the 2006 NHS Act. As set out at [8] above, the Secretary of State’s duty prescribed by section 1 is to continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the health ‘of the people of England’. Note that it is the people of England, not the people in England, which suggests that the beneficiaries of this free health service are to be those with some link to England so as to be part and parcel of the fabric of the place. It connotes a legitimate connection with the country. The exclusion from this free service of non-residents and the right conferred by section 175 to charge such persons as are not ordinarily resident reinforces this notion of segregation between them and us. This strongly suggests that, as a rule, the benefits were not intended by Parliament to be bestowed on those who ought not to be here.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Rimer

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 225, Times 02-Apr-2009, (2009) 12 CCL Rep 213, [2010] 1 All ER 87, [2009] PTSR 1680, [2010] 1 WLR 279, [2009] LS Law Medical 282

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations (SI 1989 No 306)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah HL 16-Dec-1982
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .
Cited – Szoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions HL 28-Jul-2005
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – A and B, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health SC 14-Jun-2017
The court was asked: ‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, the respondent, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Immigration

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.326981

Sedrati and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 17 May 2001

The court was asked to consider a policy on the detention on release from prison of foreign national prisoners pending their anticipated deportation. Moses J granted a declaration that the terms of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 of the 1971 Act do ‘not create a presumption in favour of detention upon completion of the sentence’.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 418

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Prisons

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.347082

Pham v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 25 Mar 2015

The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within the meaning of article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons) he was ‘a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law’. If this issue is decided against him he also seeks to argue that the decision was disproportionate and therefore unlawful under European law.’
Held: The appeal failed, and the matter was remitted to SIAC. The question arising under article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention was not decided solely by reference to the text of the nationality legislation of the state in question. Reference may also be made to the practice of the government, even if not subject to effective challenge in the courts. It had not been established that the appellant would be stateless by operation of ietnamese law.
Lord Mance said that: ‘EU law [is] part of domestic law because Parliament has so willed’ and ‘[t]he question how far Parliament has so willed is thus determined by construing the 1972 Act’ and ‘For a domestic court, the starting point is, in any event, to identify the ultimate legislative authority in its jurisdiction according to the relevant rule of recognition. The search is simple in a country like the United Kingdom with an explicitly dualist approach to obligations undertaken at a supranational level. European law is certainly special and represents a remarkable development in the world’s legal history. But, unless and until the rule of recognition by which we shape our decisions is altered, we must view the United Kingdom as independent, Parliament as sovereign and European law as part of domestic law because Parliament has so willed. The question how far Parliament has so willed is thus determined by construing the 1972 Act.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath

Citations:

[2015] Imm AR 950, [2015] 1 WLR 1591, [2015] UKSC 19, [2015] INLR 593, [2015] WLR(D) 166, [2015] 2 CMLR 49, [2015] 3 All ER 1015, UKSC 2013/0150

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40(4), 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons 1(1), European Communities Act 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Pham v The United States of America Admn 12-Dec-2014
The defendant appealed against an order for his extradition to the USA to face extra-territorial terrorist charges.
Held: The court dismissed the appeal: ‘whether the appellant is a British citizen or not makes no difference to his relevant . .
At SIAC – B2 v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deportation – Preliminary Issue – Allowed) SIAC 26-Jul-2012
The appellant was vietnamese by birth, but had later been granted British Citizenship. The Secretary of State came to seek to deprive him of that citizenship on conducive grounds for reasons of national security, and his deportation to Vietnam. The . .
At CA (1) – B2 v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 24-May-2013
Appeal from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in which the issue was whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department was entitled to deprive a British Citizen originating from Vietnam of British nationality following his alleged . .

Cited by:

Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
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 . .
Cited – Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 27-Jan-2016
An Egyptian national, had lived here since 1994. He challenged a decision by the Secretary of State,as a member of the committee of the United Nations Security Council, known as the Resolution 1267 Committee or Sanctions Committee. The committee . .
Cited – Cherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .
Cited – Michalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
Cited – AR, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Another SC 30-Jul-2018
The appellant had been tried for and acquitted on a criminal charge. He now challenged the disclosure by the respondent of the charge in an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate.
Held: His appeal failed. The critical question was whether the . .
Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which later became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the . .
Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, European, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.544726

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay: HL 19 Feb 1986

Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without investigation.
Held: A claim to refugee status was not an exception to the ban on appeals under section 13(3). A person deemed under section 11(1) not to have entered the UK was not ‘lawfully within’ the UK within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, Status of Refugees 1951′. If the applicant (Musisi’s) argument had been well-founded any asylum seeker arriving in the United Kingdom would have ‘an indefeasible right to remain here.’
Lord Bridge observed that that would be ‘very surprising’ and he concluded rather that ‘the deeming provision enacted by section 11 (1) makes [the argument] quite untenable.’ There is a need for anxious scrutiny of any case where human life or liberty is at risk. Subject to the weight to be given to a primary decision-maker’s findings of fact and exercise of discretion, ‘the court must . . be entitled to subject an administrative decision to the more rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines’.
While acknowledging the limitations of the Wednesbury principles, the courts will apply them extremely strictly in a case in which the life of the applicant is at risk. The court must be entitled to subject an administrative decision to the most rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines. ‘The most fundamental of all human rights is the individual’s right to life and, when an administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant’s life at risk, the basis of the decision calls for the most anxious scrutiny. Where the result of a flawed decision may imperil life or liberty a special responsibility lies on the court in the examination of the decision-making process.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1987] AC 514, [1987] 2 WLR 606, [1986] UKHL 3, [1987] 1 All ER 940, [1987] Imm AR 250

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 11(1) 13(3) 33(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
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 . .
Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
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 . .
Cited – Khera 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Musisi HL 1987
Mr Musisi sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor from Kenya. When that application looked as though it might fail, he claimed political asylum as a refugee from Uganda. His application for asylum was refused on the basis that he had come . .

Cited by:

Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Applied – Murat Kaya v Haringey London Borough Council and Another CA 14-Jun-2001
The grant of temporary admission to the UK pending an decision on his asylum status, did not create a full ‘lawful presence’ in the UK. A person seeking to qualify for housing assistance had to be lawfully present within the UK, and temporary . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Cited – Szoma v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 30-Jul-2003
The applicant, a foreign national had been given temporary admission to the UK. He received income support. But this ceased after his asylum application was rejected, and he remained resident.
Held: The legislation now made specific reference . .
Cited – Cumming and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police CA 17-Dec-2003
The six claimants sought damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Each had been arrested on an officer’s suspicion. They operated CCTV equipment, and it appeared that tapes showing the commission of an offence had been tampered with. Each . .
Cited – Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same, Ex Parte Gawe HL 15-Feb-1996
Two Somali nationals were refused asylum and sought to challenge a decision rejecting their claim that to be sent to Spain would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1951.
Held: Adjudicators are . .
Cited – Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Cited – Szoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions HL 28-Jul-2005
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Singh QBD 8-Jun-1987
The Refugee Convention had ‘indirectly’ been incorporated under English law. The court considered whether a person allowed entry by an immigration officer was lawfully here irrespective of other considerations. As to the case of Musis in the . .
Cited – Regina v Makuwa CACD 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed her conviction for using a false instrument (a passport) intending someone else to accept it as genuine.
Held: Once she had brought forward sufficient evidence to support a claim to asylum status, it was then for the . .
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Cited – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 16-Jul-2014
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human . .
Cited – Evans, Regina v CACD 23-Jan-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction in a case concerning the use of a false passport. The central issue was whether the appellant had a defence based upon the proposition that he was a refugee entitled to asylum in this country. He had . .
Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.180963

Maslov v Austria: ECHR 22 Mar 2007

Citations:

1638/03, [2007] ECHR 224

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Rainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Oct-2008
The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v HK (Turkey) CA 27-May-2010
The SS appealed against the successful appeal by the respondent against a deportation order. He had come to England in 1994, been granted indefinite leave to stay, and made a family here. In 2007 he was convicted of grievous bodily harm.
Held: . .
See Also – Maslov v Austria ECHR 23-Jun-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant came lawfully to Austria when 6. He committed a large number of offences when he was 14 and 15, and had been sentenced to imprisonment. He complained of a later decision to deport him.
Held: The court said: ‘ The . .
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: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.250566

Zorig Batayav v the Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 5 Nov 2003

The case of Hariri had set too high the threshold for the level of threat which would need to apply as to the propriety of returning an asylum applicant to his home country. The correct test is that the applicant need show a ‘real risk’ of har. This is a lower standard than one of ‘probability’ as described in Hariri.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Sedley Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1489

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Clarified – Hariri v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-May-2003
It would be inappropriate to order the return of a failed asylum seeker to a country where there was a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violation of fundamental human rights. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Kpangni) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 21-Apr-2005
The asylum seeker appealed rejection of her request not to be returned home. The decision letter had applied the test under Hariri.
Held: The decision letter invoked the wrong test. Since the Hariri case the case of Batayav had clarified the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.187502

Regina (Karagoz) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: QBD 12 May 2003

The asylum seeker appealed against a decision, saying the notice of hearing had not been received by him. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal rejected his appeal without consideration of his application on the merits and without giving him opportunity to be heard. The adjudicator said he had complied with the rules.
Held: Neither the applicant nor his solicitors acknowledged receipt of the notice, nor attended the hearing. The adjudicator took evidence of posting as rebuttable evidence of receipt. However the adjudicator had not made proper allowance for all the circumstances. It would have been wise at least to have obtained a better explanation of events, including as a minimum a call to the solicitors. On appeal against the decision the Immigration Appela tribunal had notice of assertions hat the notice had not been received. It made no finding on those assertions, but ignored them. That was unlawful, and if having considered the evidence it had concluded an appeal had a chance of success, he should have allowed the appeal.

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Times 11-Jun-2003

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000 (2000 No 2333) 30(2) 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Natural Justice

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.183686

Williams, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Feb 2017

Challenge to regulations requiring payment of fee on application for naturalistion by all applicants irrespective of means.

Judges:

Davis, Underhill, Macur LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 98, [2017] 1 WLR 3283, [2017] WLR(D) 172

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.577500

Ullah, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 22 Jan 2015

The claimant in this judicial review claim challenged the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student.

Judges:

Taylor HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 337 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.543777

London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department (European Citizenship): ECJ 20 Oct 2009

ECJ Freedom of movement for persons – Rights of residence of family members of former Community worker Rights of the children to pursue their studies in the host Member State Right of the mother, who is a national of a non-member country, to reside in the host Member State Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC Absence of sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State.

Citations:

C-310/08, [2009] EUECJ C-310/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, Directive 2004/38/EC

Citing:

See Also – Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth and Secretary of State for the Home Department (European Citizenship) ECJ 20-Oct-2009
ECJ Freedom of movement for persons – Right of residence – Conditions – Former migrant worker – Person without sufficient resources or sickness insurance cover – Social assistance in the form of housing . .

Cited by:

See Also – London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 23-Feb-2010
Europa Freedom of movement for persons Right of residence National of a Member State who worked in another Member State and remained there after ceasing to work Child in vocational training in the host Member . .
See Also – Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth and Secretary of State for the Home Department (European Citizenship) ECJ 23-Feb-2010
Europa Freedom of movement for persons Right of residence National of a Member State who worked in another Member State and remained there after ceasing to work Child in vocational training in the host Member . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380303

Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth and Secretary of State for the Home Department (European Citizenship): ECJ 20 Oct 2009

ECJ Freedom of movement for persons – Right of residence – Conditions – Former migrant worker – Person without sufficient resources or sickness insurance cover – Social assistance in the form of housing assistance – Primary carer of a child residing in the host Member State for the purpose of studying there Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Directive 2004/38/EC Relationship of the two provisions to each other.

Citations:

C-480/08, [2009] EUECJ C-480/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/38/EC, Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68

Cited by:

See Also – London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department (European Citizenship) ECJ 20-Oct-2009
ECJ Freedom of movement for persons – Rights of residence of family members of former Community worker Rights of the children to pursue their studies in the host Member State Right of the mother, who is a . .
See Also – London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 23-Feb-2010
Europa Freedom of movement for persons Right of residence National of a Member State who worked in another Member State and remained there after ceasing to work Child in vocational training in the host Member . .
See Also – Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth and Secretary of State for the Home Department (European Citizenship) ECJ 23-Feb-2010
Europa Freedom of movement for persons Right of residence National of a Member State who worked in another Member State and remained there after ceasing to work Child in vocational training in the host Member . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380308

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Malhi: CA 1990

Parliament would not have intended to give an adjudicator powers to review the decisions of the respondent which were co-extensive with those of a court in a judicial review since this would simply cause duplication. On the true construction of section 5(1) an adjucicator hearing an appeal under section 15 of the Act of 1971 was not entitled to investigate the propriety of the procedures leading up to the Secretary of State’s decision to make a deportation order but could only enquire whether the facts of the applicant’s circumstances were such that the Secretary of State had power to make a deportation order for the reasons stated in the notice of intention to deport.
Lord Mustill explained the appeal process from the respondent’s immigration officer to an Adjudicator: ‘On the natural meaning of the words I think it quite plain . . that the adjudicator’s appellate jurisdiction is now confined to a situation where, marrying the facts of the case, the reasons given by the Secretary of State, and the deportation order which he has made, the making of that order for those reasons on those facts was something which fell outside the sphere of activity conferred on the Secretary of State by the source of his powers, namely, Parliament. Thus one must simply ask whether in such a situation as the present the Secretary of State is enabled by Parliament to make a deportation order. If the answer is ‘yes’ – as it must be – any question of whether in the circumstances the order ought to have been made does not enter into consideration.’

Judges:

Dillon, Mustill and Stuart-Smith LJJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 QB 194, [1990] 2 WLR 932

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1988 5(1), Immigration Act 1971 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Adopted – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Oladehinde HL 18-Oct-1990
A decision at Senior Executive Officer level was accepted as appropriate in a deportation case. There was an express form of delegation, and acts of the immigration officers required to be regarded as the acts of the Home Secretary.
Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.222909

AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Oct 2009

An appeal to the FTT covers not only any ground before the Secretary of State when she made the decision under appeal but also any grounds raised in response to a one-stop notice issued under section 120 of the 2002 Act, even if they had not been the subject of any decision by the Secretary of State and did not relate to the decision under appeal.

Judges:

Arden, Moore-Bick, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1076, [2011] 1 WLR 385, [2010] INLR 111, [2010] Imm AR 284, [2010] 2 All ER 21

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 120

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Nov-2013
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 . .
Cited – AQ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed his appeal against a decision of an Immigration Judge in turn dismissing his appeal under section 82 of the 2002 Act against the decision of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376203

Hussein v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 21 Oct 2009

The complaint as to a detention pending a decision on whether one of the exceptions to automatic deportation applies.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2492 (Admin), [2010] Imm AR 320

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376216

Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 7 Apr 2009

The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life.

Judges:

Mitting J Ch, Lane SIJ

Citations:

[2009] UKSIAC 66/2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, British Nationality Act 1981 40

Citing:

See Also – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At ECHR (2) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .

Cited by:

At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SIAC (3) – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
See Also – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373720

Naureen and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Salford City Council: CA 15 Jan 2013

Appeal by claimants in judicial review proceedings against the court’s refusal to award costs in their favour following settlement. The settlement was an agreement that the claimants would withdraw their claim, because of a change in circumstances.

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1795, (2013) 16 CCL Rep 21, [2013] 2 Costs LR 257

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Immigration

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.470743

MSK, Re Judicial Review: SCS 27 Nov 2012

Judicial Review of a decision by the United Kingdom Border Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 23 June 2011 denying the petitioner refugee status and Answers for The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Citations:

[2012] ScotCS CSOH – 179

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.466326