Category: Immigration

BAPIO Action Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 9 Nov 2007

The action group appealed against refusal of a judicial review of guidelines as to the employment of non-EU doctors, saying that they were in effect immigration rules and issuable only under the 1971 Act. The court had said that since the guidance did not apply to all health services it was principally an employment measure.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Sedley LJ said that the guidance directly and intentionally affected immigration law and practice by imposing on the possibility of employment in the public sector a restriction beyond those contained in the Rules. It made no difference that the guidance did not affect private hospitals: the partial nature of the restriction emphasised that the state was using its power as a policy-maker, not an employer. Maurice Kay LJ said that the purpose of the guidance was to regulate the conditions attaching to the immigration status of an identified group.

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Maurice Kay LJ, Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1139, [2008] ACD 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – BAPIO Action Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another QBD 9-Feb-2007
The claimants said that changes to the Highy Skilled Migrant Programme were unfairly introduced, that they had effectively barred non-EU doctors from applying for first tier doctor appointments, and that the guidance could properly be derived only . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council HL 12-Dec-1985
The House heard a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s assessment of the proper level of expenditure by a local authority.
Held: A ‘low intensity’ of review is applied to cases involving issues ‘depending essentially on political . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – BAPIO Action Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another HL 30-Apr-2008
The House considered whether the Secretary of State for Health acted lawfully in issuing guidance as to the employment of foreign doctors to employing bodies within the National Health Service in April 2006.
Held: The secretary of state’s . .
Cited – Watkins-Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v The Governing Body of Aberdare Girls’ High School and Another Admn 29-Jul-2008
Miss Singh challenged her school’s policy which operated to prevent her wearing while at school a steel bangle, a Kara. She said this was part of her religion as a Sikh.
Held: Earlier comparable applications had been made under human rights . .
Cited – London Borough of Hillingdon and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and others Admn 6-Nov-2008
The claimant challenged the substantial increase in court fees in public law children cases in the Fees Orders. The respondent said that the orders were intended to reflect the true costs of such proceedings and that funding had been provided to . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
Cited – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Jul-2010
The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Moseley, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey SC 29-Oct-2014
Consultation requirements
The claimant challenged a decision of the respondent reducing the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme reducing Council Tax for those in need, saying that the Council’s consultation had been inadequate.
Held: The consultation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Immigration

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261310

Klusova v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 7 Nov 2007

Lord Justice Mummery said: ‘On the issue of ‘some other substantial reason’ for dismissal, I agree with the appeal tribunal. The employment tribunal erred in law in finding that the council did not genuinely believe that the continued employment of Ms Klusova would contravene statutory restrictions. I am mindful, of course, of the high threshold already mentioned to justify interference on the ground of perversity, even with an inference drawn by an employment tribunal from the primary findings of fact.
The employment tribunal singled out two aspects of the evidence when dealing with the issue of genuine belief. The first was the council’s failure to notify or consult with Ms Klusova about its concerns on the continued lawfulness of her employment, so that her solicitor could seek the necessary clarification from the Home Office. The second was that the council had considered the guidance in the Code of Practice issued by the Secretary of State.
The genuineness or otherwise of the council’s relevant belief is a matter of inference from admitted or established primary facts. In my judgment, no inference of an absence of genuine belief could reasonably have been drawn by the tribunal from the two particular facts expressly singled out. At most these facts are evidence of a lack of due regard by the council for the procedure for a dismissal decision which it did not believe applied. They are not, in my judgment, evidence of a lack of genuine belief in the unlawfulness of Ms Klusova’s continued employment.’

Judges:

Mummery, Laws, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1127, [2008] ICR 396

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – London Borough of Hounslow v Klusova EAT 5-Oct-2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. The Respondent dismissed the Claimant as she could not provide evidence of her lawful working status. The Employment Tribunal erred . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith and Others v Trustees of Brooklands College EAT 5-Sep-2011
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Varying terms of employment
The Employment Judge was entitled to hold that the agreed variation of the Claimants’ salary was not for a reason connected with a relevant TUPE . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Immigration

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260273

BB v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 2 Nov 2007

The applicant had been made subject to orders restricting his freedom, being suspected of involvement with terrorist activity.
Held: He should be granted bail, but subject to stringent conditions.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2007] UKSIAC 29/2005

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – BB, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another CA 19-Nov-2012
The Secretary of State wished to deport the applicant on the basis of his suspected involvement in acts of terrorism. An order for his deportation had been revoked by the respondent, but he had remained on very stringent bail conditions, since 2007. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260250

AG and others (EEA-Jobseeker-Self-Sufficient Person-Proof) Germany: IAT 3 Aug 2007

IAT (i) To qualify as a ‘jobseeker’ under reg 6(1)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1003) an EEA national must meet all three requirements set out at reg 6(4), including that he be a person who entered the United Kingdom in order to seek employment.
(ii) A person who is a jobseeker can also qualify as a ‘worker’ under reg 6(1)(b) but the requirements applied by ECJ case law in respect of workers-as-jobseekers are essentially the same as those set out in reg 6(1)(a).
(iii) In considering what period of time a jobseeker has to find work, 6 months may be a general rule of thumb, but there is no fixed time limit. The ECJ in Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745, Case C-344/95 decided that the period must be a ‘reasonable period’ and the assessment of what is ‘reasonable’ must be made in the context of each individual case. Thus it may sometimes be less, sometimes more, than 6 months. In all cases, however, the period in question must start from the date of the person’s arrival in the United Kingdom.
(iv) To satisfy the self-sufficiency requirement of the EEA Regulations, under reg 4(4) the resources of a family member cannot be aggregated with those of the EEA national where those resources are derived from past employment of that family member: W(China) and X(China) [2006] EWCA Civ 1494, GM and AM [2006] UKAIT 00059 and MA and others [2006] UKAIT 00090 applied.
(v) The burden of proof is on the applicant/appellant to establish any EEA right of admission or residence. A failure to substantiate any such right – for example by failing to produce relevant evidence – is likely to mean that the claim/appeal will fail.

Judges:

Storey, Grubb SIJJ

Citations:

[2007] UKAIT 00075

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 6(1)(a)

Immigration, European

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259283

Dine (ECHR Art 8, Physical and Moral Integrity, Proportionality) Kosovo: IAT 19 Feb 2003

The Secretary of State appealed with leave against the decision of an Adjudicator who had allowed the respondent’s appeal against the applicant’s decision to direct the respondent’s removal from the United Kingdom. The respondent was a citizen of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 06638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258691

Ali, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 5 Jul 2007

The applicants had first applied for asylum in 1999 and then been given leave to stay, but the husband not yet indefinite leave. The wife applied for naturalisation for herself and the children which was refused because the husband did not yet have indefinite leave.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1983 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258803

RD (Cessation – Burden of Proof – Procedure) Algeria: IAT 26 Jun 2007

IAT i If an appellant challenges a decision of the Secretary of State to revoke a refugee’s indefinite leave to remain because he has ceased to be a refugee for one of the reasons given in section 76(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 then the Secretary of State must prove that such a reason existed and in so doing must rely only on an action that took place after the section came into force on 10 February 2003.
ii If an appellant seeks to argue that the action relied on by the Secretary of State did not have its presumed or likely effect the Immigration Judge is entitled to look at evidence tending to illuminate the appellant’s conduct, including evidence of actions before the section came into force.
iii An appellant can rely on a ground of appeal alleging that he is in fact a refugee when the Immigration Judge hears an appeal even if the respondent establishes that the appellant had ceased to be a refugee.

Citations:

[2007] UKAIT 00066

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258620

A v United Kingdom: ECHR 1982

The Commission considered a complaint where entry clearance was refused for the Philippine fiancee of a disabled man of limited means on the basis that she did not have the means to maintain and support herself without access to public funds.
Held: The complaint was manifestly ill-founded. There was no evidence there would be any legal obstacles preventing the applicant from marrying his fiancee in the Philippines. The article 12 right: ‘does not, in principle, include the right to choose the geographical location of the marriage’ and ‘the Commission considers that the limitation of immigration possibilities to only those people who will definitely not create an economic burden on the host state is not of itself an unreasonable or arbitrary requirement’.

Citations:

9773/82, [1982] 5 EHRR 296

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8 12 14

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Apr-2006
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Baiai and others CA 23-May-2007
The claimants challenged rules which meant that certain immigrants subject to immigration control were unable to marry, save only those marrying according to the rites of the Church of England.
Held: The rules were not justified by evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.240354

QX v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 21 Sep 2020

Whether the present proceedings breach the claimant’s right to a fair trial under article 6 of the Convention.
The claimant applied for a review of two of the obligations imposed on him after his return to the United Kingdom under a Temporary Exclusion Order. The obligations are made under section 9 of ‘the 2015 Act. In their current form, they are as follows:
(i) A reporting obligation: the claimant must report daily to a named police station between specified hours; and
(ii) An appointments obligation: the claimant must each week attend a two-hour appointment with a mentor from the Home Office Desistance and Disengagement Programme and a two-hour appointment with a theologian.
In his written grounds for review the claimant sought an order quashing the obligations. He submits that each of the obligations engages his right to respect for private and family life under article 8 of the Convention and that they breach article 8 because they are neither necessary nor proportionate.

Judges:

Farbey J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2508 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6, Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – QX v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-May-2020
Challenge to Temporary Exclusion Order.
Held: The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to national law but has an autonomous meaning within article 6(1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime, Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.654034

Singh, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 18 Jun 2019

Appeal against a decision which dismissed the appellant’s application to judicially review the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse her claim for asylum and to certify the appellant’s claim as clearly unfounded.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.638830

MA, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 5 Oct 2012

Application for judicial review challenging the ongoing refusal of the Defendant to accept an application for family reunion and an application for asylum without payment of a fee.

Judges:

Birtles J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2683 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.464819

MT (Algeria) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 30 Jul 2007

The defendants challenged deportation orders made for national security purposes, saying that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission should not have taken closed material into account. They argued that if returned to Algeria, they would suffer torture.
Held: SIAC was entitled to take such material into account. The court had a duty of rigorous scrutiny, but the presence of the defendant was not a prerequisite for that. The commission had in fact failed in that duty, and the case was remitted to the Commission.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Buxton LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 808, Times 03-Aug-2007, [2008] 2 All ER 786, [2007] UKHRR 1267, [2008] 2 WLR 159, [2007] HRLR 41, [2008] QB 533, [2008] 1 Lloyds Rep 30, [2007] All ER (D) 466, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 113

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258457

FH and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 5 Jul 2007

Each claimant said that the defendant had failed to determine within a reasonable time their applications to be allowed to stay.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1571 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – ZO (Somalia) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 28-Jul-2010
The Directive gave certain rights to asylum applicants. The claimants had applied for asylum, and on failing in their applications, renwewed them, claiming the rights under the Directive again. The respondent said that the rights applied only on a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254501

AJoh, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 Jul 2007

The applicant complained of the delay in the processing of her asylum application.
Held: ‘It was reasonable to expect that both [the applicant] and her husband would be aware of her precarious immigration status’.

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge P QBD, May, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 655

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appel from – Ajoh, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office Admn 16-May-2006
. .

Cited by:

Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254440

Nasseri v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 2 Jul 2007

The applicant had sought and been refused asylum. He was found to have come via Greece, and steps were put in place to return him there. He now complained that the provision which allowed no discretion to the respondent to look at his case when the third party country was listed as safe was in breach of his human rights.
Held: A declaration of incompatibility was granted. Counsel for the respondent argued that a declaration could only be granted where a country had been left on the list of ‘safe’ countries when it should be removed. This was mistaken. The deeming provision operated to prevent investigation of a potential breach. This was not merely a denial of a remedy; it directed the respondent not to comply with his obligations under article 3: ‘Failure to conduct an adequate investigation of the risks of loss of life or torture or inhuman and degrading treatment is a breach of the substantive article and it is that investigation that the deeming provision impedes.’

Judges:

McCombe J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1548 (Admin), Times 03-Aug-2007, [2008] 1 All ER 411, [2008] 2 WLR 523, [2007] HRLR 36, [2007] UKHRR 1008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 Sch 3

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JN CA 14-May-2008
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that paragraph 3(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act was incompatible with Article 3. The clause was said to restrict the Home Secretary from considering anything beyond the country . .
At First Instance – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had claimed asylum after fleeing Afghanistan to Greece and then to the UK. On the failure of his application, he would be returned to Greece, but objected that he would thence be returned to Afghanistan where his human rights would be . .
At First Instance – Nasseri v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-2013
Questions set for the parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254346

MA (Draft Evaders; Illegal Departures; Risk) Eritrea Cg: IAT 26 Jun 2007

IAT 1. A person who is reasonably likely to have left Eritrea illegally will in general be at real risk on return if he or she is of draft age, even if the evidence shows that he or she has completed Active National Service, (consisting of 6 months in a training centre and 12 months military service). By leaving illegally while still subject to National Service, (which liability in general continues until the person ceases to be of draft age), that person is reasonably likely to be regarded by the authorities of Eritrea as a deserter and subjected to punishment which is persecutory and amounts to serious harm and ill-treatment.
2. Illegal exit continues to be a key factor in assessing risk on return. A person who fails to show that he or she left Eritrea illegally will not in general be at real risk, even if of draft age and whether or not the authorities are aware that he or she has unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the United Kingdom.
3. This Country Guidance supplements and amends to the above extent the Country Guidance in IN (Draft evaders – evidence of risk) Eritrea CG [2005] UKIAT 00106, KA (draft-related risk categories updated) Eritrea CG [2005] UKAIT 00165, AH (Failed asylum seekers – involuntary returns) Eritrea CG [2006] UKAIT 00078 and WA (Draft-related risks updated – Muslim Women) Eritrea CG [2006] UKAIT 00079.

Citations:

[2007] UKAIT 00059

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – GM (Eritrea) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2008
The claimants sought the protection of the Refugee Convention against deportation to their native Eritrea. Their own accounts of their experiences were doubted, and they sought to rely upon the general country guidance to demonstrate the risks they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253679

DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 26 Feb 2020

Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of notice of the decision to make a deportation order, the making of the deportation order, and the detention on foot of it are essential steps in the same transaction. The detention depends for its legality on the lawfulness of the deportation itself. Absent a lawful basis for the making of a deportation order, it is not possible to breathe legal life into the decision to detain.’

Judges:

Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 7, [2020] INLR 376, [2020] AC 698, [2020] 3 All ER 353, [2020] 2 WLR 611, [2020] WLR(D) 112, UKSC 2018/0140

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 07 Oct 2019 am Video, SC 7 Oct 2019 pm Video, SC 8 Oct 2019 pm Video

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 72(4)(a), Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – DN (Rwanda) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 22-Feb-2018
The court considered its freedom to depart from an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal . .
Cited – EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KC (South Africa) v Same CA 26-Jun-2009
The respondent had listed criminal offences committed by the applicants in support of his decision to have them removed and returned home.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The list provided included offences which were not of the serious nature . .
Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Wrongly Decided – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Draga CA 21-Jun-2012
Whether a distinction could be drawn between, on the one hand, a decision to make a deportation order and the making of the order, and, on the other, the decision to detain. It was argued that a flaw in the decision to make a deportation order/the . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
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 . .
Doubted – Mohammed Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Office and Another CA 5-Jul-1994
The revocation of a deportation order does not make a detention pending deportation retrospectively unlawful. . .
Cited – ID and others v The Home Office (BAIL for Immigration Detainees intervening) CA 27-Jan-2005
The claimants sought damages and other reliefs after being wrongfully detained by immigration officers for several days, during which they had been detained at a detention centre and left locked up when it burned down, being released only by other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.648272

ID and others v The Home Office (BAIL for Immigration Detainees intervening): CA 27 Jan 2005

The claimants sought damages and other reliefs after being wrongfully detained by immigration officers for several days, during which they had been detained at a detention centre and left locked up when it burned down, being released only by other inmates. The respondent argued that immigration officers had immunity from suit.
Held: Brooke LJ said that what the law requires is that the policies for administrative detention are published and that immigration officers do not stray outside the four corners of those policies when taking decisions in individual cases. Where a detention would normally be regarded as unlawful, and led to a loss of liberty, an immigration officer enjoyed no immunity from suit, and was liable to pay compensation. The arguments of policy to deny compensation were overwhelmed by those recognising the seriousness of unlawful detention.
If the proceedings in that case in which damages were claimed for false imprisonment in breach of the claimants’ Convention rights were viable, they were properly brought as a private law action.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Vp Ca, Lord Justice Thomas, Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 38, Times 10-Feb-2005, [2005] INLR 27, [2006] 1 All ER 183, [2006] 1 WLR 1003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
Cited – Mohammed Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Office and Another CA 5-Jul-1994
The revocation of a deportation order does not make a detention pending deportation retrospectively unlawful. . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
Cited – Nadarajah and Amirhanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Dec-2003
The Secretary of State’s published policy was that, if legal proceedings were initiated, removal would not be treated as imminent even if it otherwise was. The Secretary of State also had an unpublished policy, namely that information that . .
Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Cited – Percy and Another v Hall and Others QBD 31-May-1996
There was no wrongful arrest where the bylaw under which it was made was invalid. The question is the belief of the arresting officers. The effect of retrospective legislation is not always fully worked through. English law provides no cause of . .
Cited – Grinham v Willey 1859
A felony crime was reported to the police by the defendant. The police officer attended, and on the information supplied arrested the plaintiff who was taken to the police station and charged, signing the charge sheet.
Held: The defendant was . .
Cited – Davidson v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Another CA 31-May-1993
A store detective said the plaintiffs had stolen from the store. He was wrong. The plaintiffs sought damages from the defendant for false imprisonment.
Held: If the police use their own discretion to arrest a suspect, an informer is not liable . .
No longer sustainable – Everett v Griffiths HL 1921
The plaintiff had been committed to a mental hospital. The question was whether the doctor (Anklesaria) who signed the certificate to support his committal was liable to him in negligence.
Held: The House affirmed the judgment of the Court of . .
Cited – Eshugbayi Eleko v Office Administering the Government of Nigeria HL 24-Mar-1931
The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus.
Held: Lord Atkin said that in a habeas corpus case, ‘no member of the executive can interfere with the liberty or property of a British subject except on condition that he can support the legality . .
Cited – Liversidge v Sir John Anderson HL 3-Nov-1941
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents.
Held: The . .
Cited – Murray v Ministry of Defence HL 25-May-1988
The plaintiff complained that she had been wrongfully arrested by a soldier, since he had not given a proper reason for her detention.
Held: The House accepted the existence of an implied power in a statute which would be necessary to ensure . .

Cited by:

Cited – TF, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 18-Dec-2008
The claimant had been near to completing a sentence for serious violence. He now challenged the way in which, as his sentenced approached completion, the defendant had sought an order transferring him to a secure mental hospital. He was served with . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Cited – Ruddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .
Cited – DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Torts – Other, Negligence

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.222041

EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KC (South Africa) v Same: CA 26 Jun 2009

The respondent had listed criminal offences committed by the applicants in support of his decision to have them removed and returned home.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The list provided included offences which were not of the serious nature required for inclusion in such a list, and the respondent had not properly allowed for the risk to the applicant if returned home. The 2004 Order was ultra vires the enabling power and was therefore unlawful.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Hooper and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 630, Times 24-Jul-2009, [2010] 1 QB 633, [2010] 3 WLR 182, 2 ALR Intl 693, [2009] INLR 459

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004 (SI 2004 No 1910), Nationality, Immigration and Asylums Act 2002 72(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.347219

Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Nov 2019

The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia whether damages for false imprisonment were allowable under Factortame.
Held: The appeals failed. Chapter 55 of the EIG does not establish objective criteria for the assessment of whether an applicant for international protection who is subject to a Dublin III transfer procedure may abscond; its contents do not constitute a framework with certain predetermined limits; and it does not set out the limits of the flexibility of the relevant authorities in assessing the circumstances of each case in a manner which is binding and known in advance. It follows that Chapter 55 of the EIG cannot satisfy the requirements of articles 28(2) and 2(n) of the Dublin III Regulation and the majority of the Court of Appeal were right so to hold.
They were all detained unlawfully and are entitled to damages under domestic law for false imprisonment. I would transfer these proceedings to the County Court for the assessment of the quantum of those damages, if that quantum cannot be agreed.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 56, [2019] 3 WLR 1156, [2021] AC 143, [2020] HRLR 4, 47 BHRC 600, [2020] INLR 260, [2020] 1 All ER 669, [2020] WLR(D) 12, UKSC 2018/0197

Links:

Bailii Summary, Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 29 Jul 2019 am Video, SC 29 Jul 2019 pm Video, SC 30 Jul 2019 am Video

Statutes:

Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Admn – SS, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another Admn 26-May-2017
The claimant sought asylum, claiming to be a child.
Held: He was not a child when detained. However, he had been detained to secure his transfer to the responsible member state under the Dublin III scheme; that it had to be established that he . .
At CA (Appeal from) – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 4-Oct-2018
Conjoined hearing of appeals in respect of three judgments covering the cases of five individual immigrants who were placed in detention for periods pending possible removal to other EU Member States pursuant to the asylum claim arrangements under . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
Cited – Brasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4) ECJ 5-Mar-1996
Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete . .
Cited – HK (Iraq) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Nov-2017
The claimants had applied for asylum, but had arrived from other EU countries. Their claims being dismissed, they were detained pending removal. They said that on return to Bulgaria, they would face harsh treatment. . .
At Admin (1) – Khaled v SS Home Department Admn 18-Apr-2016
The Court was asked as to the making of orders for the return of asylum seekers to Bulgaria, being their first country of arrival within the EU. The claimants challenged both the lawfulness of their removal and the lawfulness of their detention.
Cited – Abdulkadir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 28-Jun-2016
. .
Cited – Policie CR, Krajske reditelstvi policie Usteckeho kraje, odbor cizinecke policie v Al Chodor and Others ECJ 15-Mar-2017
Police detention of Immigrants to follow rules
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 . .
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 . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Cited – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
Cited – Mandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his . .
Cited – Kruslin v France ECHR 24-Apr-1990
Hudoc The claimant complained of the interception of her telephone calls.
Held: The condition of legality relates to the characteristics of the legislation itself, and not just to its application in the . .
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Cited – Francovich, Bonifaci and others v Italy ECJ 19-Nov-1991
LMA The claimants, a group of ex-employees sought arrears of wages on their employers’ insolvency. The European Directive required Member States to provide a guarantee fund to ensure payment of employees’ arrears . .
Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Cited – Dougoz v Greece ECHR 6-Mar-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Parker v The Chief Constable of Essex Police CA 11-Dec-2018
The claimant was arrested on suspicion of murder and rape. The investigating officer was delayed by traffic so the arrest was carried out by a surveillance officer who was present at the scene but did not personally have reasonable grounds for . .

Cited by:

Cited – DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European, Damages

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.645432

Maaouia v France: ECHR 5 Oct 2000

A deportation order, made against a Tunisian, was eventually quashed by the French Administrative Court and the Article 6 complaints related to the length of time taken in the proceedings. The Court’s reasoning why Article 6 does not apply to procedures for the expulsion of aliens was: ‘the decision whether or not to authorise an alien to stay in a country of which he is not a national does not entail any determination of his civil rights or obligations or of any criminal charge against him within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention.’
The fact that an expulsion order may have major repercussions on an individual’s private and family life is incidental to the exercise of state powers to take administrative measures for the purpose of immigration control. Those incidental effects do not bring expulsion proceedings within the scope of article 6.

Citations:

39652/98, (2001) 33 EHRR 1037, [2000] ECHR 455, (2000) 33 EHRR 42

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

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 – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Cited – BB, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another CA 19-Nov-2012
The Secretary of State wished to deport the applicant on the basis of his suspected involvement in acts of terrorism. An order for his deportation had been revoked by the respondent, but he had remained on very stringent bail conditions, since 2007. . .
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 . .
Cited – QX v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-May-2020
Challenge to Temporary Exclusion Order.
Held: The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to national law but has an autonomous meaning within article 6(1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.165944

Haq, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 23 Jan 2008

Application for judicial review by the claimant of the defendant’s decision, on 8 April 2008, to remove him from the UK to Pakistan

Judges:

Stewart QC HHJ

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 357 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 10(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.314289

Croydon and Another v AW, A and Y, Regina (on the Application of): CA 4 Apr 2007

The authority appealed a finding that it was responsible to provide support to an able bodied asylum seeker who was destitute but whose human rights would be infringed by the absence of support.
Held: Where the asylum seeker was able bodied, the responsibility fell on central government, but where he was infirm it would fall on the local authority.

Judges:

Judge LJ P, Laws LJ, Scott Baker LJ

Citations:

Times 11-May-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 266

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – AW, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon; A D Y v London Borough of Hackney and Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Dec-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251142

Ma (Palestinian Arabs, Occupied Territories, Risk) Palestinian Territories CG: IAT 20 Feb 2007

IAT Merely being a Palestinian Arab in the Occupied Territories , even if male aged between 16-35 from the northern part of the West Bank, does not mean that a person would face on return a real risk of persecution, serious harm under paragraph 339C of the amended Immigration Rules or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. This Determination, made with the benefit of up-to-date and detailed background evidence, updates and replaces AB and others as country guidance.

Citations:

[2007] UKAIT 00017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249638

G v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 8 Feb 2007

Algeria is a country where torture is systematically practised by the DRS (Information and Security Department). No DRS officer has ever been prosecuted for it; and : ‘in the absence of [certain assurances from the Algerian Government] there would be a real risk that on his return to Algeria A (and persons in a similar position) would be tortured or subject to other ill-treatment’

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2007] UKSIAC 2/2005

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – W (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 7-Mar-2012
Each of the three appellants, suspected of terrorist activity, objected to their proposed return to Algeria on deportation, saying that it was accepted that torture was routinely used against people in their position, and without redress. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249609

Tabnak, Regina v: CACD 19 Feb 2007

The defendant appealed against his conviction under section 35 of the 2004 Act, having pleaded guilty after an adverse ruling as to the law. After being refused asylum and several failed appeals he had refused to give assistance in providing the necessary information to allow his deportation. The CPS and Home Office guidances on the section were in conflict.
Held: The restriction on use of Pepper v Hart in criminal matters had less force when, as in this case it was the defendant seeking to make use of it.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Burton J, David Clarke J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 380, [2007] 1 WLR 1317

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 24

Citing:

Cited – Thet v Director of Public Prosecutionsz Admn 19-Oct-2006
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction by the magistrates for entering the UK without a passport. He had relied on a false passport povided to him by an agent, and had returned it to the facilitator. He was therefore unable to . .
Considered – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration, Constitutional

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249376

Ahsak, Regina (on the Application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 29 Oct 2002

The decision maker had taken into account all relevant and material considerations and had come to a conclusion which could not be said to have been unreasonable in all the circumstances, including the circumstance that the petitioner had already had essentially the same claim entertained and rejected by two separate adjudicators. The court rejected a challenge to a refusal by the Tribunal to extend the time limit.

Judges:

Rafferty J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2182 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Mohammadi v Advocate General Scotland HCJ 2-May-2003
The applicant had claimed asylum. His claim had been rejected and an order made for repatriation to Iran. His appeal was lodged two days out of time. He appealed its rejection. The solicitors accepted full responsibility for the delay.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.178010

Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator and Another: Admn 25 Oct 2002

The asylum seeker had sought support from the Secretary of State. That assistance had been granted subject to a condition that she live where directed. She sought to appeal.
Held: There was no right of appeal against the condition. The jurisdiction must come from section 103(2). That section made it clear that a right of appeal lay only of the support was stopped. There had to be two decisions, a grant of and a withdrawal of support. There was no pre-existing support grant to support an appeal.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-2002, Gazette 19-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2218 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95 103(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator and Another (Ahment Godan) CA 28-Oct-2003
The applicant was an asylum applicant. She sought to appeal a decision to stop support payments. She appealed a decision that she had no right to appeal.
Held: A decision which might give rise to an appeal only occurred if the applicant had an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.178021

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte De Melo and ex parte De Araujo: Admn 19 Jul 1996

The court considered a fear of persecution as founding a claim for asylum where a family member attracts the adverse attention of the authorities, whether for non-Convention reasons or reasons unknown, and persecutory treatment is then directed to other family members.
Held: ‘his family may form a particular social group within the meaning of the Convention. If then they are persecuted because of their connection with him, it is as a matter of ordinary language and logic, for reasons of their membership of a family – the group – that they are persecuted. I see nothing anomalous in this. The original evil which gives rise to persecution against an individual is one thing; if it is then transferred so that a family is persecuted, on the face of it that will come within the Convention. The definition of ‘refugee’ in article 1 of the Convention treats membership of a particular social group as being in pari materia with the other ‘Convention reasons’ for persecution: race, religion and so forth.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 42, [1997] Imm AR 43

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Rejected – Quijano v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 18-Dec-1996
The appellant asylum seeker claimed to have been persecuted as a member of his stepfather’s family, and thus of a particular social group, because members of a drug cartel had first persecuted the stepfather after he refused to co-operate with them . .
Affirmed – Secretary of State for the Home Department v K, Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought asylum, fearing persecution as members of a social group. The fear of persecution had been found to be well founded, but that persecution was seen not to arise from membership of a particular social group.
Held: The . .
Cited – RT (Zimbabwe) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Jul-2012
The claimants said it would be wrong to return them to Zimbabwe where they would be able to evade persecution only by pretending to a loyalty to, and enthusiasm for the current regime.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeals failed. The HJ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136590

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Ndongala: Admn 22 Jul 1996

Having failed in his application for asylum, the applicant renewed his application for judicial review of the decision to remove him back to Zaire.
Held: The application sought in effect to request the court to find the President’s decision irrational for not considering a ground not put to him. Equally the court was not to be put in the position of challenging the tribunal’s findings, it having heard the applicant, that his evidence was not credible. Review refused.

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136595

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Oladehinde: Admn 1990

The Home Secretary authorised certain officials in the immigration department of the Home Office to act on his behalf to decide whether to issue a notice of intention to deport persons under the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The court granted orders of certiorari to quash each of the decisions to deport the claimants on the ground that the Secretary of State could not validly authorise immigration inspectors to make decisions to deport immigrants from the United Kingdom.

Citations:

[1990] 2 WLR 1195, [1991] 1 AC 254, [1990] 2 All ER 367

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Oladehinde CA 2-Jan-1990
The Court allowed appeals against a decision quashing decisions for the deport the applicants: there was no legal impediment to the Home Secretary authorising immigration inspectors to take the decision to deport immigrants who are in breach of . .
At Divisional Court – 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, Administrative

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.541389

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v The Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others: Admn 1 May 2015

Judgment of the court necessitated by a disagreement as to the terms of the order which properly reflects both OPEN and CLOSED decisions handed down on 18 March 2015. Suffice to say that we have no doubt that the declaration which properly reflects the judgments of the court is:
‘It is declared that, on a review under s.2C or s.2D of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, the Secretary of State is required to disclose to the Commission under Rule 10B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 the material identified as used by the author of any relevant report to found or to justify the facts or conclusions expressed; alternatively, if the decision under review is subsequently re-analysed, disclosure must be of such material as was in existence at the date of decision under review and which the Secretary of State considers sufficient to justify those facts and conclusions.’

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD J, Macur DBE LJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1236 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.546413

In re Wasfi Suleman Mahmod: Admn 17 Jan 1994

Laws J considered the Hardial Singh principles, adding: ‘While, of course, Parliament is entitled to confer powers of administrative detention without trial, the courts will see to it that where such a power is conferred the statute that confers it will be strictly and narrowly construed and its operation and effect will be supervised by the court according to high standards.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1994] EWHC 3 (Admin), [1995] Imm AR 311

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Jun-2003
The claimant challenged his continued detention under the 1971 Act after his appeal to the Immigration Appeal tribunal had been successful. He had been accused of rape, but was convicted of a sexual assault, though still serious. Before being . .
Cited – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.381678

Regina v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Quijano: Admn 12 May 1994

The applicant sought special leave to remain in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the refusal of his application for political asylum. A special adjudicator found that he had a well founded fear of persecution but not for a Convention reason. The Immigration Appeals Tribunal upheld this decision but, on the basis of their findings of fact, recommended to the Secretary of State that he should give the applicant special leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

[1994] EWHC 6 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.381682

Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department, Ex Parte To-Ming Lam: Admn 24 Jan 1994

Application for judicial review of the decision of an immigration officer declaring him to be an illegal entrant as defined by section 33(1) of the 1971 Act; that is a person who unlawfully entered in breach of the immigration laws.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

[1994] EWHC 2 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3391)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.381679

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Toprak: Admn 31 Oct 1995

Application for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing the claimant leave to appeal against the decision of a special adjudicator who had dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant him political asylum. The application raises a question about the time limit for the service of grounds of application for leave to appeal to the Tribunal.

Judges:

McCollough J

Citations:

[1995] EWHC 9 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.381591

HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 5 Dec 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1796

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 2-Sep-2008
Application for leave to appeal against refusal of asylum – fear of persecution. . .
See Also – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same CA 10-Mar-2009
Each applicant had had his appeal for asylum rejected. They had said that they were practising homosexuals, and that they would face persecution if returned home.
Held: The appeals failed. In each case the social norms of the country of origin . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249102

AM (Cameroon), Regina (on the Application of) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: CA 21 Feb 2007

The asylum applicant sought judicial review of interlocutory decisions of an immigration judge. The defendant said that there was a statutory procedure and that therefore that had to be followed rather than judicial review.
Held: The application could go ahead. The application raised an issue of considerable importance. secion 103A had been introduced to speed up hearings by making the decisions of immigration judges final, allowing an alternative. Here the application had not received the most anxious scrutiny it deserved, and the applicant had not received the highest standards of fairness. In such circumstances judicial review might be available.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Rix LJ, Hooper LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 131, Times 11-Apr-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 103A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina on the Application of M v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal CA 16-Dec-2004
The appellants sought judicial review of the refusal of asylum. They sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, but that had been refused. They then sought a statutory review by a judge of the Administrative division. That review . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248989