Category: Immigration

Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 14 Nov 2001

Mistreatment was found to be only localised in India, allowing an asylum seeker to be returned.

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 925

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Contrasted – Regina (Husan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 24-Feb-2005
The applicant sought asylum from Bangladesh. His application was refused, and the respondent issued a certificate to say that his claim was hopeless. He sought judicial review.
Held: There was so much evidence that Bangladesh suffered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167262

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte R: QBD 29 Nov 2000

An applicant for asylum had had his case rejected and was separated from his family whose similar application had not yet been finally determined, but he remained in close contact with them. He was imprisoned, and on his release ordered to be deported to Argentina. He complained, successfully that the effect would be to destroy any chance of family life. It was held that the effect of deporting him without waiting for the result of his wife’s application was disproportionate in the effect it would have on his family life. No order was made on an undertaking from the Home Secretary to await that decision.

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88643

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Roszkowski: QBD 29 Nov 2000

Racial harassment consisting of behaviour not condoned by the state could not amount to torture. Differences in the apparent definitions of torture did not mean that a lower standard applied. Racist behaviour not condoned by the state, and which in this case did no extend beyond discrimination and harassment did not amount to torture. The torture referred to in the paragraph must relate to the substantive claim for asylum,and not to something extraneous. The torture must be either by the state or, if by non-agents then the state must be shown to have refused or been incapable of providing protection.

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-2000

Statutes:

International Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88645

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Javed, Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Zulfiqar Ali; Regina v Same ex parte Abid Ali: QBD 9 Feb 2001

The Home Secretary had designated Pakistan as a safe country for the return of asylum applicants. The applicants sought to review this decision. The Secretary submitted that the court was not competent to challenge his assessment since it had been approved by Parliament, unless it could be shown that he had acted in bad faith.
Held: The Human Rights Act now places the Courts under a positive duty to give effect to the Convention, and one requirement in particular was a prohibition of torture and in human and degrading treatment. An effective remedy has to be provided to avoid breaches of this right. The court having given detailed consideration to the relevant material, it was clear that the decision to include Pakistan in the list of designated countries could only have been reached on an erroneous view of the facts, of the law or of both. The decision was plainly wrong. The schedule was provided in order to enable unsuccessful claims to be summarily and expeditiously disposed of where there was no risk to the life of person of the asylum seekers. There was in the clearest evidence that the applicants had been tortured in the past and he returned to Pakistan would be likely again to be the subject of torture. Other applicants would be subject to persecution. The declaration was granted.

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88638

Gedi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Oct 2015

Application for Judicial Review challenging the lawfulness of bail conditions (a curfew monitored by electronic tagging) imposed by the defendant during deportation proceedings under section 32(5) of the 2007 Act.

Judges:

Edis J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2786 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 405

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gedi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 17-May-2016
The court considered the power of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and her immigration officials to impose conditions of curfew and electronic monitoring on those who have been released from immigration detention pending the conclusion . .
Cited – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.553242

Gedi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 17 May 2016

The court considered the power of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and her immigration officials to impose conditions of curfew and electronic monitoring on those who have been released from immigration detention pending the conclusion of deportation proceedings.
Held: Paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act did not empower the Secretary of State to impose a curfew by way of a restriction under that paragraph.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Black, Gross LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 409, [2016] WLR(D) 263, [2016] 4 WLR 93

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Gedi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 9-Oct-2015
Application for Judicial Review challenging the lawfulness of bail conditions (a curfew monitored by electronic tagging) imposed by the defendant during deportation proceedings under section 32(5) of the 2007 Act. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .
Cited – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.564448

Regina (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Sep 2001

When assessing the propriety of an order requiring an asylum seeker to be removed and returned to a third country, it was wrong to look at the processes which might be applied by that third country. The court should look at the outcome of the decision and the test laid down, namely whether that third country might itself deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the Convention.

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Laws and Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1611

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Santia Yogathas v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 25-May-2001
When asking whether it was correct to certify the removal of an asylum seeker to a third country, in the light of a country’s compliance with the Convention, the issue should be approached in an intensely practical fashion. The question was not . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166839

Regina (Linda Boafo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 6 Feb 2001

The applicant had appealed a refusal to grant her permanent residence. The adjudicator granted her appeal, but the Home Secretary had declined on the bass that the adjudicator’s decision had not been accompanied by directions.
Held: The decision was binding on the Secretary of State. Whilst there are some circumstances which might allow a re-opening of a decision, the absence of direction was not one.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Robert Walker

Citations:

Times 18-Mar-2002, [2001] EWHC Admin 782

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 19(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Clarified – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Yousuf 1989
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166586

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Saadi, Maged, Osman, Mohammed: CA 19 Oct 2001

The Secretary appealed against a decision that the detention of certain asylum applicants was unlawful. The detention was for a limited period, but he had put forward no reason for the detentions of the individuals.
Held: The Act authorised detention up to the point where a decision was made. The Act empowered detention not for the purpose of examination or for the purpose of deciding whether to give or refuse leave to enter, but pending those events. It was simply to prevent a person entering without leave. The court doubted that detention was necessary to ensure effective and speedy processing of asylum applications, but that was speculation. It was impossible to condemn as irrational the subjection of those asylum seekers whose applications might be rapidly resolved to short-term of detention to ensure that the regime operated without dislocation. Article 5.1(f) recognised the state’s right to prevent unauthorised admission by detaining the person seeking to enter.
Lord Phillips MR said that lawful exercise of statutory powers can be restricted, according to established principles of public law, by government policy and the legitimate expectation to which such policy gives rise.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-2001, Gazette 15-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1512, [2002] 1 WLR 356

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (on the application of Baram etc) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Sep-2001
Asylum seekers had been detained on arrival in the UK, and then released. They challenged the propriety of the detention. The policy was that detention was appropriate where entry had been achieved through breach of immigration control, and did not . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina (on the application of Baram etc) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Sep-2001
Asylum seekers had been detained on arrival in the UK, and then released. They challenged the propriety of the detention. The policy was that detention was appropriate where entry had been achieved through breach of immigration control, and did not . .
Appeal from – 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 – 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166634

Farrakhan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 1 Oct 2001

The applicant challenged the Home Secretary’s decision to exclude him from the UK, on the grounds that his presence would exacerbate tensions between the Jewish and Muslim communities. A balance is to be found between freedom of speech and the need for public order. He agreed to sign an undertaking in the form requested by the Secretary, and had been admitted to Israel after signing a similar document. The Home Secretary no longer suggested he would use the opportunity to create tension, and there was no suggestion that other, secret, matters had affected the decision. The greater the interference of a decision with the human rights of the applicant, the more intense should be the scrutiny of the courts in reviewing that decision. In this case, the Home Secretary failed to establish ‘objective justification’ for his decision to continue the exclusion of the claimant from the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Mr Justice Turner

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 781

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 1

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Yaser Mahmood) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 9-Aug-2001
The Home Secretary had served notice that the applicant was an illegal immigrant, and liable to deportation. An order had been made for the cross examination of the applicant. He had come to England to study, but soon dropped his immediate plans. He . .

Cited by:

Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Appeal from – Farrakhan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Apr-2002
The applicant sought admission to the UK. In the past he had made utterances which were capable of being racist. He claimed to have recanted, and had given undertakings as to his behaviour. At first instance it was held that the Home Secretary had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Judicial Review

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166234

D v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 May 1997

The applicant, an AIDS sufferer, resisted his removal to St Kitts where lack of medical treatment would hasten his death.
Held: The deportation of a convicted person suffering from Aids to a country with less care facilities was inhuman or degrading treatment. ‘In its Vilvarajah and Others judgment and its Soering judgment the Court considered judicial review proceedings to be an effective remedy in relation to the complaints raised under Article 3 in the contexts of deportation and extradition. It was satisfied that English courts could effectively control the legality of executive discretion on substantive and procedural grounds and quash decisions as appropriate. It was also accepted that a court in the exercise of its powers of judicial review would have power to quash a decision to expel or deport an individual to a country where it was established that there was a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, on the ground that in all the circumstances of the case the decision was one that no reasonable Secretary of State could take.
The applicant maintained that the effectiveness of the remedy invoked first before the High Court and subsequently before the Court of Appeal was undermined on account of their failure to conduct an independent scrutiny of the facts in order to determine whether they disclosed a real risk that he would be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment. He relied on the reasoning in the Chahal v United Kingdom judgment. However the Court notes that in that case the domestic courts were precluded from reviewing the factual basis underlying the national security considerations invoked by the Home Secretary to justify the expulsion of Mr Chahal. No such considerations arise in the case at issue.’
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Not necessary to examine Art. 2; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

Times 12-May-1997, (1997) 2 BHRC 273, 146/1996/767/964, (1997) 24 EHRR 423, 30240/96, [1997] ECHR 25, (1998) 42 BMLR 149

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 3

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar CA 19-Jun-2003
In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries.
Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, . .
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165491

Ahmed v Austria: ECHR 17 Dec 1996

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The court noted that Somalia (the country to which Austria had proposed expelling the applicant): ‘was still in a state of civil war and fighting was going on between a number of clans vying with each other for control of the country. There was no indication that the dangers to which the applicant would have been exposed in 1992 had ceased to exist or that any public authority would be able to protect him.’

Citations:

24 EHRR 278, 25964/94, [1996] ECHR 63, (1996) 24 EHRR 278

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Citing:

Applied – Cruz Varas And Others v Sweden ECHR 20-Mar-1991
Hudoc No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 25-1 ‘Although the present case concerns expulsion as opposed to a decision to extradite, the Court considers that the above [Soering] . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hari Dhima v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 8-Feb-2002
The appellate sought judicial review to challenge an order for his return to Albania. He said that he would be subject to persecution from communist sympathizers, and his life was at risk for a blood feud. Adjudicators had variously accepted and . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165461

Vilvarajah and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Oct 1991

Five Tamils were refused asylum in the UK and returned to Sri Lanka but then continued to suffer ill-treatment. Their complaints to Strasbourg were rejected under both Articles 3 and 13, but with regard to Article 3, it held: ‘108. The court’s examination of the existence of a risk of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 at the relevant time must necessarily be a rigorous one in view of the absolute character of this provision and the fact that it enshrines one of the fundamental values of a democratic society making up the Council of Europe.’ As to Article 13 the court concluded: ‘125. It is not in dispute that the English courts are able in asylum cases to review the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant asylum with reference to the same principles of judicial review as considered in the Soering case and to quash a decision in similar circumstances and that they have done so in decided cases. Indeed the courts have stressed their special responsibility to subject administrative decisions in this area to the most anxious scrutiny where an applicant’s life or liberty may be at risk. Moreover, the practice is that an asylum seeker will not be removed from the U.K. until proceedings are complete once he has obtained leave to apply for judicial review. 126. While it is true that there are limitations on the powers of the courts in judicial review proceedings the Court is of the opinion that these powers, exercisable as they are by the highest tribunals in the land, do provide an effective degree of control over the decisions of the administrative authorities in asylum cases and are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 13.’
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 13.

Citations:

13163/87, 13164/87, (1991) 14 EHRR 248, [1991] ECHR 47, 13165/87

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

Applied – Cruz Varas And Others v Sweden ECHR 20-Mar-1991
Hudoc No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 25-1 ‘Although the present case concerns expulsion as opposed to a decision to extradite, the Court considers that the above [Soering] . .
Appeal from – Vilvarajah and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Oct-1987
. .

Cited by:

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 – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Cited – Keegan v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-2006
The claimant had been the subject of a raid by armed police on his home. The raid was a mistake. He complained that the English legal system, in rejecting his claim had not allowed him to assert that the police action had been disproportionate.
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 – 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 . .
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165139

AI, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Feb 2015

The claimant’s judicial review challenged the decision of the defendant to remove him to France as a safe third country without considering his asylum claim. France had accepted responsibility for considering his asylum claim under Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003.

Judges:

Gill D

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 244 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.542444

Alliance of Turkish Businesspeople Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Mar 2019

This is a claim for judicial review which raises issues about a substantive legitimate expectation. The claim arises as a result of a change of policy made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 16 March 2018 affecting the right of Turkish business people and their dependants to obtain indefinite leave to remain.

Judges:

Dingemans J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 603 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.634771

Eker v Land Baden-Wurttemberg: ECJ 29 May 1997

The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council must be interpreted as making the extension of a Turkish worker’s residence permit in the host Member State subject to his having been legally employed continuously for one year with the same employer.
First, that provision, which requires the completion of one year’s continuous employment for there to be a right of renewal of the work permit in respect of the same employer and implies the existence of a right of residence for the person concerned to enable him actually to work as an employed person, is based on the premises that only a contractual relationship which lasts for one year is expressive of employment relations stable enough to guarantee the Turkish worker continuity of his employment with the same employer.
Second, the coherence of the system of gradual integration of Turkish workers in the host Member State’s labour force, established by the three indents of Article 6(1), would be disrupted if the worker had the right to enter the service of another employer even before satisfying the condition of one year’s legal employment specified in the first indent of Article 6(1) when, under the second indent of Article 6(1), it is only after three years of legal employment in the Member State concerned that a Turkish worker is entitled to take up work with a different employer, on condition that the employer is engaged in the same business as the previous employer and respects the priority to be given to workers of the Member States.

Citations:

C-386/95, [1997] EUECJ C-386/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment, Immigration

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161740

Agumba, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 6 Dec 2017

The appellant challenged decisions: first to refuse him indefinite leave to remain on grounds of 10 years’ lawful residence under paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules; secondly, to refuse indefinite leave to remain on grounds of private and family life under paragraph 276ADE and Article 8 ECHR; and thirdly, to certify the human rights claim under section 94 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as clearly unfounded.

Judges:

Asplin DBE LJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 2660

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.628161

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Gallagher (Rec 1995,p I-4253) (Judgment): ECJ 30 Nov 1995

An expulsion of a community national from a member state must be with reasons given unless there was some need for urgency.
Europa 1. Freedom of movement for persons – Derogations – Decision concerning the control of foreign nationals – Decision ordering the expulsion of a Community national lawfully residing in the territory of a Member State – Examination and opinion procedure before the competent authority – Obligation to obtain the opinion of the competent authority before the administrative authority takes the decision to expel (Council Directive 64/221, Art. 9(1)) 2. Freedom of movement for persons – Derogations – Decision concerning the control of foreign nationals – Decision ordering expulsion – Examination and opinion procedure before the competent authority – Competent authority – Necessary condition – Duties performed in absolute independence – Appointment by the administrative authority which takes the decision to expel – Permissible (Council Directive 64/221, Art. 9(1))
1. Article 9(1) of Directive 64/221 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of urgency, it prohibits the administrative authority from taking a decision ordering the expulsion of a Community national lawfully residing in the national territory, whether holding a residence permit or not required to hold one, before a competent authority has given its opinion.
2. Article 9(1) of Directive 64/221 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health does not preclude the competent authority required to give an opinion prior to a decision ordering expulsion from being appointed by the same administrative authority as takes the decision ordering expulsion, provided that the competent authority can perform its duties in absolute independence and is not subject to any control by the authority empowered to take the measures provided for in the directive, and that it follows a procedure enabling the person concerned, on the terms laid down by the directive, effectively to present his defence. It is for the national court to determine in each case whether those requirements have been met.

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-1995, Case C-174/94, C-175/94, [1995] EUECJ C-175/94

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 64/221/EEC art 9

Immigration, European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161380

I v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 29 Jun 2005

Where an applicat claimed protection both under asylum laws and under human rights legislation, the facts of the persecution which might not succeed under one head might be effective under the other, and the adjudicator should deal separately with each claim, identifying factual determinations for each purpose.

Judges:

Buxton, Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJJ

Citations:

Times 18-Aug-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.229375

Kazim Kus v Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden: ECJ 16 Dec 1992

1. The third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker does not fulfil the requirement, laid down in that provision, of having been engaged in legal employment for at least four years, where he was employed on the basis of a right of residence conferred on him only by the operation of national legislation permitting residence in the host country pending completion of the procedure for the grant of a residence permit, even though his right of residence has been upheld by a judgment of a court at first instance against which an appeal is pending. 2. The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish national who obtained a permit to reside on the territory of a Member State in order to marry there a national of that Member State and has worked there for more than one year for the same employer under a valid work permit is entitled under that provision to renewal of his work permit even if at the time of determination of his application his marriage has been dissolved. 3. A Turkish worker who fulfils the requirements of the first or third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association may rely directly on those provisions in order to obtain the renewal not only of his work permit but also of his residence permit, since the right of residence is indispensable to access to and engagement in paid employment. That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the consideration that, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Decision No 1/80, the procedures for applying paragraph (1) are to be established under national rules. Article 6(3) merely clarifies the obligation incumbent on Member States to take such administrative measures as may be necessary for the implementation of that provision, without empowering them to make conditional or restrict the application of the precise and unconditional right which it grants to Turkish workers.

Citations:

C-237/91, [1992] EUECJ C-237/91

Links:

Bailii

European, Immigration, Employment

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160781

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department: ECJ 7 Jul 1992

ECJ The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community citizens of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community and preclude measures which might place Community citizens at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State. For that purpose, nationals of Member States have in particular the right, which they derive directly from Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty, to enter and reside in the territory of other Member States in order to pursue an economic activity there as envisaged by those provisions. A national of a Member State might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to pursue an activity as an employed or self-employed person in the territory of another Member State if, on returning to the Member State of which he is a national in order to pursue an activity there as an employed or self-employed person, his conditions were not at least equivalent to those which he would enjoy under Community law in the territory of another Member State. He would in particular be deterred from so doing if his spouse and children were not also permitted to enter and reside in the territory of that State under conditions at least equivalent to those granted by Community law in the territory of another Member State. The fact that a national of a Member State enters and resides in the territory of that State by virtue of the rights attendant upon his nationality, without its being necessary for him to rely on his rights under Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty, does not preclude him from relying on the latter rights when he takes up residence again in that Member State. Consequently, Article 52 of the Treaty and Directive 73/148 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services must be construed as requiring a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone, with that spouse, to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the Treaty and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the territory of the State of which he or she is a national. The spouse must enjoy at least the same rights as would be granted to him or her under Community law if his or her spouse entered or resided in the territory of another Member State.
Mr Singh was the Indian husband of a British woman. They had married in the UK in 1982, and lived in Germany from 1983-1985 where they were employed. They returned to the UK to open a business in 1985. A decree nisi of divorce was pronounced in 1987. Mr Singh remained in the UK without leave from 1988. A deportation order was made against Mr Singh, which he appealed, asserting a Community law right to reside in the UK. The decree absolute was pronounced in 1989.
Held: The fact that the marriage was dissolved by the decree absolute was irrelevant to the issue raised by the question before the court which concerned the basis of his right of residence in the period before the decree: ‘A national of a member state might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to pursue an activity as an employed or self-employed person as envisaged by the Treaty in the territory of another member state if, on returning to the member state of which he is a national in order to pursue an activity there as an employed or self-employed person, the conditions of his entry and residence were not at least equivalent to those which he would enjoy under the Treaty or secondary law in the territory of another member state.’
The court rejected the submission that her rights turned on domestic law. The case was concerned with free movement under Community law: ‘These rights cannot be fully effective if such a person may be deterred from exercising them by obstacles raised in his or her country of origin to the entry and residence of his or her spouse.’

Judges:

O Due, P

Citations:

[1993] Fam Law 294, [1993] 1 FLR 798, [1992] 3 CMLR 358, Times 31-Aug-1992, [1992] ECR I-4265, C-370/90, [1992] EUECJ C-370/90, [1992] Imm AR 565, [1992] 3 All ER 798

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Secretry of State for the Home Department v Akrich ECJ 23-Sep-2003
After being deported twice from England, the applicant returned secretly, married a British citizen, and sought leave to remain. He was deported, but to Ireland where his new spouse was then established. He sought to rely upon the case of Surinder . .
Cited – Regina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB Admn 17-Oct-1996
Sperm which had been taken from a dying and unconscious man may not be used for the later insemination of his surviving wife. The Act required his written consent.
Held: Community Law does not assist the Applicant. The question had been . .
Cited – Machado v Secretary of State for the Home Deptment CA 19-May-2005
At issue was a decision of the Home Secretary to deport on grounds of public policy a foreign national married to an EU national with a right of establishment in the United Kingdom. The substantive issue was whether the decision of the IAT to uphold . .
Cited – Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant had come from France to England, and worked as a teaching assistant. She set out on a course to train as a teacher but became pregnant, gave up the course, and eventually gave up work temporarily. Her claim to Income Support was refused . .
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.

European, Immigration

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160614

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Antonissen: ECJ 26 Feb 1991

ECJ The free movement of workers enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty entails the right for nationals of Member States to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the purposes of seeking employment. The period of time for which the person seeking employment may stay may be limited, but, in order for the effectiveness of Article 48 to be secured, persons concerned must be given a reasonable time in which to apprise themselves, in the territory of the Member State concerned, of offers of employment corresponding to their occupational qualifications and to take, where appropriate, the necessary steps in order to be engaged. In the absence of a Community provision prescribing the amount of time, it is not contrary to Community law for the legislation of a Member State to provide that a national of another Member State who entered the first State in order to seek employment may be required to leave the territory of that State (subject to appeal) if he has not found employment there after six months, unless the person concerned provides evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and that he has genuine chances of being engaged. 2. A declaration recorded in the Council minutes at the time of the adoption of a provision of secondary legislation cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting that provision where no reference is made to the content of the declaration in the wording of the provision in question and the declaration therefore has no legal significance.
The Secretary of State had ordered that A, who had been convicted of drug offences, be deported pursuant to section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 having deemed his deportation to be conducive to the public good. Under paragraph 143 of H.C. 169 the Immigration Appeals Tribunal ruled that he could no longer be treated as a community worker, and rely on Council Directive (64/221/E.E.C.) of 25 February 1964 (relative to the movement and residence of foreign nationals restricted on grounds of public policy, public security or public health,) since he had not entered employment by the end of the six-month period. A had challenged this ruling before the Divisional Court which then asked the European Court whether for the purpose of determining whether a national of a Member State is to be treated as a ‘worker’ when seeking employment so as to be immune from deportation (save in accordance with Council Directive 64/221 E.E.C.) ‘the legislature of the second Member State may provide that such a national may be required to leave the territory of that State (subject to appeal) if after six months from admission to that territory he has failed to enter employment?’
Held: A person seeking employment was to be regarded as a ‘worker’ but it was not contrary to community law ‘for the legislation of a Member State to provide that a national of another Member State who entered the first State in order to seek employment may be required to leave the territory (subject to appeal) if he has not found employment there after six months, unless the person concerned provided evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and that he has genuine chances of being engaged.’

Citations:

[1991] ECR I-745, C-292/89, [1991] EUECJ C-292/89, [1991] 2 CMLR 373

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b), Council Directive (64/221/E.E.C.) of 25 February 1964

Cited by:

Cited – Chief Adjudication Officer v Wolke; Remelien v Secretary of State for Social Security HL 13-Nov-1997
The claimant was an EC national who had become resident here but was not seeking work, since she cared for her children. The Secretary of State said that since she was not seeking work, she was not entitled to remain and should make arrangements to . .
Cited – Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 3-May-2006
The applicants sought asylum. Their child had a right of residence as a European citizen.
Held: The applicants could not rely upon their child’s right of residence to establish one for themselves. . .
Cited – Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant had come from France to England, and worked as a teaching assistant. She set out on a course to train as a teacher but became pregnant, gave up the course, and eventually gave up work temporarily. Her claim to Income Support was refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160341

Canaj v Secretary of State for Home Department and Vallaj v A Special Adjudicator: CA 24 May 2001

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 782, [2001] INLR 342

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Mohamad) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 29-Nov-2002
The applicant challenged the refusal of his plea for asylum. He was an Iraqi Kurd. The order required him to be returned to Iraq.
Held: Notwithstanding the apparent terms of the order, he would in fact be returned to the Kurdish area of Iraq, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160040

Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001

Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human rights, the court had to assess whether the, first, the objective could be achieved by some alternative, less interfering, action, and, second, whether the effect was disproportionate to the need. A fair balance has to be struck. The ‘margin of appreciation’ test did not affect the test applied or the question asked. The test was more intense that Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Dyson LJ said: ‘There is nothing in the Convention nor any authority to support Mr Bishop’s assertion that Mr Sezek’s detention is incompatible with Article 5(1)(f) if other ways of preventing him absconding are available.’ ‘The court does not have expertise in judging how effective a deterrent is a policy of deporting foreign nationals who have been convicted of serious drug trafficking offences once they have served their sentences.’
‘[I]n deciding what proportionality requires in any particular case, the issue will usually have to be considered in two distinct stages. At the first stage, the question is: can the objective of the measure be achieved by means which are less interfering of an individual’s rights? . . At the second stage, it is assumed that the means employed to achieve the legitimate aim are necessary in the sense that they are the least intrusive of Convention rights that can be devised in order to achieve the aim. The question at this stage of the consideration is: does the measure have an excessive or disproportionate effect on the interests of affected persons?’

Judges:

The President Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 20-Jun-2001, Gazette 09-Aug-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 795, [2001] EWCA Civ 1139, [2002] 1 WLR 348, [2001] UKHRR 1150, [2002] INLR 55

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, Immigration Act 1971 Sch 3 para 2(3), Supreme Court Act 1981 15(3), European Convention on Human Rights 5.1 8.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v The Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Samaroo Admn 20-Dec-2000
. .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – De Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and others PC 30-Jun-1998
(Antigua and Barbuda) The applicant was employed as a civil servant. He joined a demonstration alleging corruption in a minister. It was alleged he had infringed his duties as a civil servant, and he replied that the constitution allowed him to . .
Cited – Boughanemi v France ECHR 24-Apr-1996
A Tunisian national lived in France. In his youth. He was deported after being convicted of a number of serious criminal offences. He returned illegally and formed a relationship with a French national whose child he acknowledged to be his. He . .
Cited – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited HL 2-Apr-1998
Chief Constable has a Wide Discretion on Resources
Protesters sought to prevent the appellant’s lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .
Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ali Dinc Admn 3-Apr-1998
The applicant had been sentenced to five years imprisonment for possession of heroin with intent to supply.
Held: In making the decision whether under the Immigration Rules, a deportation order should be made, the Secretary of State was . .
Cited – Caglar v Germany ECHR 7-Dec-2000
The applicant a Turkish national, aged 55 years, had lived in Germany for 30 years. He was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment for a drugs offence, and then ordered expuelled to Turkey. His wife had serious psychiatric problems. She needed him and . .
Cited – Barthold v Germany ECHR 25-Mar-1985
Hudoc Violation of Art. 10; Just satisfaction reserved
Any claim to derogation from a convention right must be ‘convincingly established’. . .
Cited – D v United Kingdom ECHR 1997
In the circumstances of the case, where the applicant was in the advanced stage of a terminal illness (AIDS), to implement a decision by the respondent to remove the appellant to St Kitts in the West Indies would be a violation of his rights under . .
Cited – Poku v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
. .

Cited by:

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 – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
Cited – Lough and others v First Secretary of State Bankside Developments Ltd CA 12-Jul-2004
The appellants challenged the grant of planning permission for neighbouring land. They sought to protect their own amenities and the Tate Modern Gallery.
Held: The only basis of the challenge was under article 8. Cases established of a breach . .
See Also – Allan Samaroo v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Sep-2001
A civil court of appeal has power to hear an application for bail in the course of a judicial review of a committal to custody under the Act pending deportation. Though the applicant could have sought habeas corpus, the court could exercise 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 – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
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 – X, Regina (on the Application of) v Y School Admn 21-Feb-2007
The court was asked whether a school was entitled to refuse to allow a Muslim girl to wear the niqab full face veil at school. The reasons were ‘first educational factors resulting from a teacher being unable to see the face of the girl with a . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
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 . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v James and Another CA 17-May-2013
The appellant challenged an injunction under the 2009 Act excluding him from parts of Birmingham. He said that it prevented him visiting his mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘It was for the judge to decide on the basis of . .
Cited – Martin Corey, Re for Judicial Review SC 4-Dec-2013
The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159581

Nguyen Tuan Cuong and others v The Director of Immigration and others (Hong Kong): PC 21 Nov 1996

(Dissenting judgment) A person who satisfies [the Convention] definition is said to have refugee status. The Convention imposes obligations towards persons having that status. For immigration, Article 31 forbids the imposition of penalties on refugees arriving in another country without authorisation – unlike article 33, it is derogable under article 42. Refugee status is not an international passport which entitles the bearer to demand entry without let or hindrance into the territory of any contracting state. It is always a status relative to a particular country or countries. The obligations of contracting states are, first, not to punish a refugee who has entered directly from the country in which his life or freedom was threatened for a Convention reason and secondly, not to return him across the frontier of that country. In all other questions of immigration control: for example, punishment for illegal entry from a third country, or expulsion to a third country from which there is no danger of refoulement to a country falling within article 33, the question of whether a person has refugee status is simply irrelevant.

Judges:

Lord Goff and Lord Hoffmann (Dissenting)

Citations:

[1996] UKPC 43, [1997] 1 WLR 68

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another CA 20-May-2003
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Immigration

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159203

Regina (Ivanauskiene) v A Special Adjudicator: CA 31 Jul 2001

The applicant had sought asylum. Her case had been refused, according to the law as stated at that time, but the decision then binding on the adjudicator (Shah), had been reversed in the House of Lords. It had now been held that the women of a country could be seen, at law, as a persecuted group. She now appealed again, and the decision was set aside.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

Times 18-Sep-2001, Gazette 20-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1271

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Geneva Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951 Cmd 9197) and (1967 Cmnd 3906) article 1(A)(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .

Cited by:

Cited – Davoodipanah v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Jan-2004
Before the adjudicator, the respondent had conceded that the asylum applicant had good reason to fear persecution if returned to her home country. He sought to withdraw that concession at the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Held: It was not for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147650

Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Thirukumar: CA 1989

The court emphasised the fundamental importance of asylum decisions: ‘asylum decisions are of such moment that only the highest standards of fairness will suffice.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1989] Imm AR 402

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – The Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Nov-2004
The applicant alleged that the fast track system of selecting and dealing with unmeritorious asylum claims was unfair and unlawful.
Held: The system was not inherently unfair and therefore unlawful and clear written instructions would suffice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.219247

Sivakumar v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Jul 2001

The applicant for asylum was a Tamil. He was persecuted. He claimed it was political. The possibility of drawing that inference was greater when legal mis-treatment was not expected to be followed by legal proceedings. Excessive or arbitrary punishment for political offences did not necessarily amount to persecution for a Convention reason, but it did raise a strong inference of persecution. A person to whom a political opinion was imputed or who was of a race or social group subject to sanctions that did not apply generally in a state, was more likely than not to have been the subject of discrimination and persecution.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Wright

Citations:

Gazette 13-Sep-2001, Times 07-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1196, [2002] INLR 310

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellant sought asylum. He had fled Sri Lanka. He was a Tamil and feared torture if he returned. His application had been rejected because the consequences flowed from his suspected involvement in terrorism, and that was not a Convention . .

Cited by:

Adopted – Sepet and Bulbil v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellants sought asylum. They were Kurdish pacifists, and claimed that they would be forced into the armed forces on pain of imprisonment if they were returned to Turkey.
Held: The concept of ‘persecution’ was central. It is necessary to . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellant sought asylum. He had fled Sri Lanka. He was a Tamil and feared torture if he returned. His application had been rejected because the consequences flowed from his suspected involvement in terrorism, and that was not a Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147634

Yasin Sepet and Erdem Bulbul v Secretary of State for Home Department (UNCHR Intervening): CA 11 May 2001

The fear of being punished for refusing to be drafted into a country’s defence forces, where the claimant would be a conscientious objector, and the right to such objections would not be recognised, was not sufficient to justify an application for asylum. It was an internationally recognised preference that such objections to military service should be allowed, but that preference had not reached the point of becoming a legal requirement, and no right not to be drafted had been established..

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 681

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Sepet and Bulbil v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellants sought asylum. They were Kurdish pacifists, and claimed that they would be forced into the armed forces on pain of imprisonment if they were returned to Turkey.
Held: The concept of ‘persecution’ was central. It is necessary to . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sepet and Bulbil v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellants sought asylum. They were Kurdish pacifists, and claimed that they would be forced into the armed forces on pain of imprisonment if they were returned to Turkey.
Held: The concept of ‘persecution’ was central. It is necessary to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147543

Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service: CA 10 Apr 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 512, (2001) 33 HLR 83, (2001) 4 CCL Rep 143

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service Admn 27-Feb-2001
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147509

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Senkoy: CA 2 Mar 2001

There does not have to be a change in the nature of the persecution to be feared for a new claim to asylum.
Held: ‘When clear and cogent evidence of the same fear of the same persecution for the same Convention reason, let us say of the possibility of the execution of an applicant on return, becomes available which was not previously not available, can it really be right to treat that as not amounting to a new claim for asylum?’

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 328, [2001] IAR 399

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Balamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147458

Massaquoi v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 345

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on the Application of the Secretary of State for the Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina on the Application of Hwez v Secretary of State for the Home Department and an Adjudicator Admn 19-Dec-2001
The Home Secretary’s statement that he had no intention to seek the removal from this country of an asylum seeker did not operate to remove his right to persist with an appeal against refusal of refugee status. In the light of the Sad case, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147378

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Peter Isiko; Susan and Shemy Isiko: CA 20 Dec 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 346

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sayania v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Same v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 5-Apr-2001
The claimant sought to quash the IAT refusal of leave to appeal a Special Adjudicator’s decision, which had found no exceptional compassionate circumstances. She was a British Overseas Citizen seeking to be united with her family. She asserted that . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147379

Holub and another v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2000

The claimants appealed against a refusal of their request for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to grant them exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. If returned to Poland the daughter of the family would face educational difficulties.
Held: The case presented at first instance had been factually incorrect. Everyone is entitled to be educated to a minimum standard: if the right was to have any content it should at least encompass the provision of an effective education.

Judges:

Schiemann, Tuckey LJJ, Sir Swinton Thomas

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 343, [2001] 1 WLR 1359, [2001] ELR 401, [2001] Imm AR 282, [2001] INLR 219

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A2P1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School HL 22-Mar-2006
The claimant had been accused with others of arson to school property. He was suspended for the maximum forty five day period. The school then invited the family to discuss arrangements to return to the school, but the family did not attend. After . .
Cited – A v Essex County Council SC 14-Jul-2010
The claimant, a severely disabled child sought damages, saying that for well over a year, the local authority had made no provision for his education.
Held: His appeal against the striking out of his action failed. The correct approach had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education, Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147376

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

The applicant applied for asylum, but suffered from schizophrenia. He had been refused entry and detained, and then his detention was transferred to a mental hospital by order of the Home Secretary, with a view to his return for treatment in Malta. The applicant alleged that the Secretary had no power to so order without going first to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Held: the Secretary’s duties were not solely to look to the applicant’s bests interests, but also to immigration control. Nevertheless it was argued that to move a person under treatment could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. In this case that argument failed. It could not be assumed that he would not receive proper health care in Malta. It was also argued that once subject to the Mental Health Act, he could only be dealt with under that Act. Parliament had not circumscribed the Home Secretary’s Immigration Act powers, and those remained in effect. Appeal refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Tuckey, And Sir Swinton Thomas

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 311

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 2(1)(b), 86(2), Mental Health Act 1983 47, 86

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147344

B v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 18 May 2000

The claimant had come to England as a child from Italy. As an adult, he was convicted of a sexual assault against his daughter, and after release from his prison sentence of five years, he now appealed against a deportation order, saying that the respondent had failed to take account of the length of time he had been here and, given the non-continuation of contact with his wife and children, the unlikelihood of his re-offending.
Held: The decision needed to be proportionate under two provisions, European and Human Rights law.
European law guaranteed freedom of movement within the EU for workers, subject to limitations on public policy grounds, which included the personal conduct of the individual, but ‘Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for the taking of such measures’
In any event, in the imposition of limitations on the right of free movement of EU nationals, member states must respect any relevant provision of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Ward, Sedley LJJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 158, [2000] Imm AR 478, [2000] INLR 361, [2000] 2 CMLR 1086

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Immigration Act 1971 3(5), Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Goremsandu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1996
The applicant had been convicted of incest with his daughter, and served with a deportation notice on release from prison.
Held: Removal on ‘public policy’ grounds may be a justified response to sufficiently serious criminal conduct, if . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Marchon CA 23-Feb-1993
It was permissible for the Home Secretary to order the deportation of a convicted drug trafficker for the public good, even though he was an EC national, and though there was nothing to suggest any propensity to commit any further offences. It was . .
Cited – Al-Sabah (Sheikh Mohammed Nasser) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal CA 1992
The applicant, a Kuwaiti citizen of previous good character had been ordered to be deported after serving a sentence for drugs and dishonesty. He sought review of the IAT’s refusal of his appeal, arguing that Rule 162 of the 1983 rules required the . .
Cited – Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorass-AE v Plisofatissis and Kouvelas ECJ 18-Jun-1991
ellinikiECJ1991
National measures adopted in order to give effect to Community rights must themselves comply with the fundamental principles of Community law: ‘With regard to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, referred to in the ninth and tenth . .
Cited – Regina v Pierre Bouchereau ECJ 27-Oct-1977
ECJ The different language versions of a community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence in the case of divergence between the versions the provision in question must be interpreted by reference . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, European

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147191

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 Court of Human Rights in such matters. Where the Home Secretary reviewed the decision before it got to the High Court, that court must look at the latest decision, but in the Court of Appeal, the facts had to be examined as at the date of the High Court decision. Despite the wealth of material to show that grave human rights abuses still occur in Turkey, the court was unable to hold that the Secretary of State was bound to find the risk of this particular applicant being ill-treated to be a real one. Clearly there exists a conflict of opinion as to the degree of risk faced generally by returnees to Turkey, but the decision was not irrational.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Schiemann And Lord Justice Thorpe

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-2000, Gazette 17-Feb-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 22, [2001] 1 All ER 719, [2000] Imm LR 306

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Resumed from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 27-Oct-1998
The claimant appealed refusal of special leave to remain here after refusal of his application for asylum.
Held: In view of the new material before the court it was not unarguable that the Secretary of State had not properly considered the . .
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
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 . .
Cited – Cruz Varas And Others v Sweden ECHR 20-Mar-1991
Hudoc No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 25-1 ‘Although the present case concerns expulsion as opposed to a decision to extradite, the Court considers that the above [Soering] . .
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Cited – Selmouni v France ECHR 28-Jul-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others QBD 7-Jun-1995
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
Cited – Vilvarajah and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Oct-1991
Five Tamils were refused asylum in the UK and returned to Sri Lanka but then continued to suffer ill-treatment. Their complaints to Strasbourg were rejected under both Articles 3 and 13, but with regard to Article 3, it held: ‘108. The court’s . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others QBD 7-Jun-1995
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive . .
Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Abdullah Turgut Admn 22-May-1998
The appellant sought exceptional leave to remain, having been refused asylum.
Held: The issue concerned a Turkish citizen seeking asylum because he feared persecution if he was returned to Turkey, in being a Kurdish draft evader likely to be . .

Cited by:

Adjourned to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 27-Oct-1998
The claimant appealed refusal of special leave to remain here after refusal of his application for asylum.
Held: In view of the new material before the court it was not unarguable that the Secretary of State had not properly considered the . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147055

Dupovac v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 21 Jan 2000

The court was asked whether the words ‘by reason of the appellant leaving the United Kingdom’ in section 33(4) Immigration Act 1971, as amended by paragraph 4(2) of schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, mean that leaving the United Kingdom is merely permissive or presumptive of abandonment of an appeal, or whether they mean that leaving is determinative of abandonment.

Judges:

Waller, Chadwick LJJ, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 33(40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147043

in re HK (an Infant): QBD 1967

A Commonwealth citizen had a right to be admitted to this country if he was (as this party claimed to be) under the age of 16. The immigration officers were not satisfied that he was under 16 and refused him admission.
Held: The Lord Chief Justice said that even if they were acting in an administrative capacity, they were under a duty to act fairly – meaning that they should give the immigrant an opportunity of satisfying them that he was under 16. Part of the duty to provide a fair hearing includes disclosure to a party of prejudicial information, in order that the party may respond.

Judges:

Lord Parker LCJ

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 617, (1967) 111 Sol Jo 296, [1967] 2 WLR 962, [1967] 1 All ER 226

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Schmidt and Another v Secretary of State for Home Affairs CA 19-Dec-1968
The plaintiffs had come to England to study at a college run by the Church of Scientology, and now complained that their student visas had not been extended so as to allow them to complete their studies. They said that the decision had been made for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.516250

Regina v Secretary of State for Department (ex parte Adan) and Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Subaskaran) etc: CA 23 Jul 1999

Where a country was a signatory to the Convention, but chose to interpret it so as not to give the same protection against oppression by non-state agents which would be given here, the Home Secretary was wrong to certify such countries, in this case France and Germany, as safe countries in which the asylum seekers should first have made their applications.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Laws, Mance LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 28-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1948, [1999] 4 All ER 774, [1999] COD 480, [1999] Imm AR 521, [1999] 3 WLR 1274, [1999] INLR 362

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Lul Omar Adan Admn 24-Nov-1998
A country which had previously rejected an asylum application could nevertheless properly be a safe third country to which a asylum applicant could be deported. Germany is a country which would abide by its obligations under international treaties. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Lul Omar Adan Admn 24-Nov-1998
A country which had previously rejected an asylum application could nevertheless properly be a safe third country to which a asylum applicant could be deported. Germany is a country which would abide by its obligations under international treaties. . .
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
Approved – EM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 18-Nov-2011
The court considered whether it was safe to return the applicant to Italy, and said: ‘a system which will, if it operates as it usually does, provide the required standard protection for the asylum seeker will not be found to be deficient because of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146863