The claimant sought for damages for false imprisonment by virtue of the exercise of powers of detention by the Defendant under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. . .
The claimant having been released on licence from a prison sentence refused to comply with the conditions of his licence on the ground that he was entitled to be released unconditionally. He was returned to prison. The Divisional Court dismissed his . .
The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been . .
The Secretary of State appealed an order requiring him to reconsider refusal of exceptional leave to remain. The applicant was an Iraqi Kurd. It was not possible to make immediate arrangements for repatriation after the order.
Held: The . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been allowed to rely on a plea of dimished responsibillity given the changes to section 2 of the 1957 Act introduced in 2009. He said that his alcoholism should . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
An illegal immigrant who was seeking political asylum may be detained if necessary. Citations: Times 07-Feb-1995, Independent 07-Feb-1995 Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2 para 9 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.87817
Hearsay evidence is admissible when considering whether an applicant is an illegal entrant. Citations: Times 24-Dec-1996, Gazette 29-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1183 Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – In Re Saidur Rahman QBD 18-Jul-1996 A court hearing a deportation review should see all the evidence, including hearsay … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Rahman: CA 11 Dec 1996
A court hearing a deportation review should see all the evidence, including hearsay evidence if necessary. Citations: Times 18-Jul-1996 Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2 Citing: Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Rahman CA 11-Dec-1996 Hearsay evidence is admissible when considering whether an applicant is an illegal entrant. … Continue reading In Re Saidur Rahman: QBD 18 Jul 1996
A decision at Senior Executive Officer level was accepted as appropriate in a deportation case. There was an express form of delegation, and acts of the immigration officers required to be regarded as the acts of the Home Secretary. Lord Griffiths said: ‘it would not be right to authorise an inspector to take a decision … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Oladehinde: HL 18 Oct 1990
The employer was prosecuted under the 1961 Act. Held: the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make and keep a place of work safe rested upon the defendant employer. If an exception was to be established, it was for the party claiming the exception to establish it. (Majority) Where a linguistic … Continue reading Nimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd: HL 1967
Immigration – Detention – Illegal entrant – Illegal entrant not given leave to enter or remain in United Kingdom – Detention pending directions for removal – Persons entering United Kingdom and present there in breach of immigration laws – Commonwealth immigrant – Immigrant entering United Kingdom clandestinely in breach of laws relating to Commonwealth immigrants … Continue reading Azam and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: HL 11 Jun 1973
If a magistrate’s warrant be shown by the constable who has the execution of it to the person charged with an offence, and he thereupon, without compulsion, attend the constable to the magistrate, and after examination be dismissed, it seems this is not suoh an arrest as will support trespass and false imprisonment. Citations: [1806] … Continue reading Arrowsmith v Le Mesurier: 13 Jun 1806
A section of public road (Hammersmith Bridge) was closed off to provide a vantage point for a boat race. The plaintiff refused to be excluded, and complained that he had not been allowed to use the public highway, and had therefore been imprisoned. Held: (majority) ‘there was no imprisonment. To call it so appears to … Continue reading Bird v Jones: QBD 11 Jan 1845
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently with him, practise the Catholic religion or ensure his son’s education. Held: … Continue reading Guzzardi v Italy: ECHR 6 Nov 1980
An unconscious or drugged person may be detained. For the tort of false imprisonment there must be shown a complete restriction in fact on the plaintiff’s freedom to move: ‘any restraint within defined bounds which is a restraint in fact may be an imprisonment.’ The court distinguished between restraint upon the plaintiff’s liberty which is … Continue reading Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd: CA 1919
High Court of Australia – The Plaintiff paid a penny on entering the wharf to stay there till the boat should start and then be taken by the boat to the other side. The Defendants were admittedly always ready and willing to carry out their part of this contract. Then the Plaintiff changed his mind, … Continue reading Robertson v The Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd: PC 10 Dec 1909
For the tort of false imprisonment to be committed, the deprivation of liberty must be actual, rather than potential: ‘Nothing short of actual detention and complete loss of freedom would support an action for false imprisonment.’ Judges: Lord Macnaghten Citations: (1903) 19 TLR 496, (1903) 30 Ind App 154 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Approved … Continue reading Syed Mahamad Yusuf-ud-Din v Secretary of State for India: 1903
Misuse of Power for ulterior object D1 and D2 lent C 80 pounds repayable in 1837, secured by a mortgage on C’s vessel. C was to be free to continue to use the vessel in the interim but the law forbade its use if he were to cease to hold its register. In 1836 the … Continue reading Grainger v Hill: CEC 1838
An action for false imprisonment will not lie against a man for fastening one of two doors in a room in which A. is, though A. cannot go through the other without trespassing. A. has a chamber adjoining to the chamber of B. and has a door that opens into it,by which there is a … Continue reading Wright v Wilson: 1699
The Refugee Convention had ‘indirectly’ been incorporated under English law. The court considered whether a person allowed entry by an immigration officer was lawfully here irrespective of other considerations. As to the case of Musis in the Bugdaycay case: ‘Each of the present applicants had only been granted temporary admission and they required, but had … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Singh: QBD 8 Jun 1987
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal procedure, and the applicant sought a … Continue reading Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947
The court considered a provision requiring refusal of leave to enter if there was no entry clearance. Held: Such a mandatory rule was intra vires, the Secretary of State retaining a discretion outside the 1971 Act. Glidewell LJ said: ‘immigration was formerly covered by the royal prerogative and it was a matter which lay entirely … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Rajinder Kaur: CA 1987
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Held: ‘l, decided that on the principle of Lane v. Esdaile the House had no jurisdiction … Continue reading In re Poh: HL 1983
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
There are no degrees of nullity The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a nullity. The Commission replied that the courts were precluded from considering the question … Continue reading Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission: HL 17 Dec 1968
Court of Appeal’s powers limited to those Given The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over judgments and orders of the High Court made by … Continue reading In re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company: HL 3 Jul 1980
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he had then been detained was too long and that the … Continue reading Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh: QBD 13 Dec 1983
The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the Convention. Held: When deciding whether an asylum applicant’s fear of persecution was … Continue reading Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran: HL 16 Dec 1987
