The defendants challenged deportation orders made for national security purposes, saying that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission should not have taken closed material into account. They argued that if returned to Algeria, they would suffer torture.
Held: SIAC was entitled to take such material into account. The court had a duty of rigorous scrutiny, but the presence of the defendant was not a prerequisite for that. The commission had in fact failed in that duty, and the case was remitted to the Commission.
Judges:
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Buxton LJ, Smith LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 808, Times 03-Aug-2007, [2008] 2 All ER 786, [2007] UKHRR 1267, [2008] 2 WLR 159, [2007] HRLR 41, [2008] QB 533, [2008] 1 Lloyds Rep 30, [2007] All ER (D) 466, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 113
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258457
