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.
Mr Justice Turner
 EWHC Admin 781
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 – 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