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 less, made ineffective any right for judicial review.
Held: The request was granted, and the 2010 policy was quashed. The evidence was that a person wanting to challenge any such decision would need more time than would be provided in order to mount a challenge: ‘the evidence shows that unless there are proper safeguards to prevent removal, there is no adequate right of access to justice because of the absence of a genuine opportunity to be able to challenge the removal directions.’ and ‘there would be great (if not insuperable) difficulty for a person subject to the 2010 exceptions to obtain legal representation if the period of notice of the directions is almost entirely outside office hours especially with the great difficulties that any legal representative would have in the limited time available not only first in obtaining access to the relevant papers, second in obtaining instructions, and third in being able to reach a decision on the proper advice; fourth in obtaining financial assistance; and fifth in making an application for a stay of the removal directions.’
Judges:
Silber J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 1925 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Race Relations Act 1971, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, European Convention on Human Rights 5(4) 6 8 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – 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 . .
Cited – N, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 18-Feb-2009
The court severely criticised the removal of a failed asylum applicant whilst his application for judicial review was pending, and ordered the respondent to arrange the return of the applicant to the UK. . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Fernandez: Fernandez v Government of Singapore HL 1971
Test for police protection need
The court considered the degree of risk to an individual which should give rise to a duty on the police to protect him under article 2.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords, bearing in mind the relative gravity of the consequences of the court’s . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) CA 20-May-1993
Prison rules were ultra vires in so far as they provided for reading letters between prisoners and their legal advisers. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to the court. A prisoner’s unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of . .
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
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 – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
Cited – Karas and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Apr-2006
Both claimants sought asylum. Their claims were rejected. They had made representations that they had ‘fresh claims’ in 2001, 2003 and March 2004 but on 10 October 2004, the Secretary of State gave instructions to an airline that the claimants were . .
Cited – Collaku v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 9-Nov-2005
Collins J criticised the system under which an applicant might be informed one day of his intended removal from the UK on the following day, saying: ‘The Home Office practice involving delay in deciding a claim but then of arresting and serving the . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Cited – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for The Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same SC 7-Jul-2010
The claimants sought to prevent their removal and return to their countries of origin saying that as practising homosexuals they would face discrimination and persecution. They appealed against a judgment saying that they could avoid persecution by . .
Cited – T, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 18-Feb-2010
The applicants were two unaccompanied minors from Eritrea who had been taken from their homes at 4am for removal that morning from the UK in the case of T for removal at 7.30am and in the case of M at 9.30am or thereabouts. M managed to prevent her . .
Cited – Millar v Dickson PC 24-Jul-2001
The Board was asked whether the appellants had waived their right to an independent and impartial tribunal under article 6 of the Convention by appearing before the temporary sheriffs without objecting to their hearing their cases on the ground that . .
Cited – 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 . .
See Also – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 21-May-2010
The claimant challeged as unlawful the respondent’s policies as to expedited removals of persons from the United Kingdom. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Mar-2011
The defendant appealed against a decision allowing the claimant to apply for judicial review of its policy relating to the giving of notice of removal from the United Kingdom, and in particular, the alleged absence of any or sufficient notice to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Judicial Review, Immigration, Constitutional, Human Rights
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421052
