Tag: Immigration

Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department for Judicial Review: OHCS 24 Dec 2003

The applicant complained that the adjudicator who had heard his asylum appeal in 1997 had not been sufficiently independent.
Held: The tribunal lacked what had come to be called ‘structural independence’ The common law test for impartiality was the appropriate test for the time of the hearing. That test would have differed substantially.

Judges:

Lord Kirkwood And Lord President And Lord Weir

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 342, Times 23-Jan-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Starrs and Chalmers and Bill of Advocattion for Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow v Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow and Hugh Latta Starrs and James Wilson Chalmers; Starrs v Ruxton, Ruxton v Starrs ScHC 11-Nov-1999
The system in Scotland whereby lesser judges were appointed by the executive, for a year at a time, and could be discharged without explanation or challenge, meant that they could be seen not to be independent, and the system was a breach of the . .
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 – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190783

Nadarajah and Amirhanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Dec 2003

The Secretary of State’s published policy was that, if legal proceedings were initiated, removal would not be treated as imminent even if it otherwise was. The Secretary of State also had an unpublished policy, namely that information that proceedings were about to be initiated would be disregarded, however credible that information might be.
Held: The Secretary of State could not rely on an aspect of an unpublished policy to render lawful that which was at odds with his published policy. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, MR said: ‘Thus the relevance of Article 5 is that the domestic law must not provide for, or permit, detention for reasons that are arbitrary. Our domestic law comprehends both the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 and the Secretary of State’s published policy, which, under principles of public law, he is obliged to follow. These appeals raise the following questions: (1) What is the Secretary of State’s policy? (2) Is that policy lawful? (3) Is that policy accessible? (4) Having regard to the answers to the above questions, were N and A lawfully detained?’

Judges:

Lady Justice Arden Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, MR, Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1768, [2004] INLR 139

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2-Dec-2002
The Claimant was a Tamil from Sri Lanka claiming asylum. He was married in 1991; his wife was also Tamil. In 1995 his claim for asylum in Germany failed. What then happened was disputed. The Claimant said that he voluntarily returned to Sri Lanka, . .
See Also – 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 by:

Cited – ID and others v The Home Office (BAIL for Immigration Detainees intervening) CA 27-Jan-2005
The claimants sought damages and other reliefs after being wrongfully detained by immigration officers for several days, during which they had been detained at a detention centre and left locked up when it burned down, being released only by other . .
Cited – SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jan-2008
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the . .
Cited – SK (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Nov-2008
Immigration detention proper after prison release
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that he had unlawfully detained the applicant. The applicant had been detained on release from prison pending his return to Zimbabwe as recommended by the sentencing judge under section 6 of the 1971 . .
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 – Regina (Konan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2004
The claimants alleged that their immigration detention had been unlawful.
Held: Collins J said: ‘Since the detention at least since 24 June 2002 was contrary to the defendant’s own policy as published in Chapter 38, it was unlawful. In so . .
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: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188644

N v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 16 Oct 2003

The applicant had come to the UK to seek asylum, but had advanced HIV/AIDS. When her asylum claim failed she sought permission to continue her stay saying that if returned she would not receive proper treatment and would die.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1369, [2004] 1 WLR 1182

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – N v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 5-May-2005
The applicant had sought asylum here, but her application was rejected. She was suffering advanced HIV/AIDS. With continued proper treatment she would survive several years. If returned to Uganda she would not receive that treatment and would not . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – N v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 5-May-2005
The applicant had sought asylum here, but her application was rejected. She was suffering advanced HIV/AIDS. With continued proper treatment she would survive several years. If returned to Uganda she would not receive that treatment and would not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188478

AE and FE v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 16 Jul 2003

The appellants challenged orders denying them asylum status. The result would be to require them to return home but subject to relocation within a different geographical area.
Held: For the purposes of considering refugee status, the conditions to which they would be returned in a different area were not relevant. They might become relevant when considering whether the return would infringe the claimants human rights, because they would not enjoy the basic notions of civil political and socio-economic human rights. The court emphasised the need to distinguish between: ‘(1) the right to refugee status under the Refugee Convention; (2) the right to remain by reason of rights under the Human Rights Convention; and (3) consideration to the grant of leave to remain for humanitarian reasons.’ and ‘Consideration of the reasonableness of internal relocation should focus on the consequences to the asylum seeker of settling in the place of relocation instead of his previous home (in context that means his home in his country of origin, rather than the place at which he has been living while his application was considered and decided). If it would be ‘unduly harsh’ for the individual applicant to be relocated in a different part of his own country of origin, it would then normally follow that refugee status should be granted.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Philips Of Worth Matravers MR

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1032, Times 25-Jul-2003, C1/2003/0047, [2003] INLR 475, [2004] QB 531

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte Robinson CA 11-Jul-1997
Where an asylum seeker was seeking to escape from persecution in one area of his home country, the court must ask if an escape to a safe area in his country of origin is available and appropriate. A failure of the country to which an asylum seeker . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hysi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Jun-2005
The claimant appealed an order to be returned to Kosovo.
Held: As the son of a gypsy mother and and an Albanian father. As such, he would face persecution if returned if his mixed race parentage became known. If order to return he would be . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184612

Behrouz Tehrani for Judicial Review of Decisions of an Adjudicator and of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal: OHCS 3 Apr 2003

The supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session did not extend to a review of the decisions of the adjudicator or the IAT in England. Both of them had sat outside Scotland, and therefore any judgment of the court could not be enforced against them.

Judges:

Lord Philip

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 100, 2003 SLT 808

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Petition of Behrouz Tehrani for Judicial Review and Answers OHCS 27-Apr-2004
. .
At Outer House – Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183967

Petition of Gurung (Ramesh) for Judicial Review: SCS 27 Feb 2003

The applicant sought asylum having fled from Nepal. The Home Secretary had made an order for his removal. He said that he had been involved in the political opposition as a student and had accordingly suffered attacks by police.

Judges:

Lord Clarke

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 49

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184000

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, the following should be considered. First, the claimant’s case in relation to his private life in the deporting state should be examined. Where the essence of the claim is that expulsion will interfere with his private life by harming his mental health, this will include a consideration of what he says about his mental health in the deporting country, the treatment he receives and any relevant support that he says that he enjoys there. Secondly, the court must look at what he says is likely to happen to his mental health in the receiving country, what treatment he can expect to receive there, and what support he can expect to enjoy. The third step is to determine whether, on the claimant’s case, serious harm to his mental health will be caused or materially contributed to by the difference between the treatment and support that he is enjoying in the deporting country and that which will be available to him in the receiving country. If so, then the territoriality principle is not infringed, and the claim is capable of being engaged.

Judges:

Mr Justice Pumfrey Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Judge

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 840, [2003] Imm AR 529

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 72(2)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 – 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 . .
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 – 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 – Bensaid v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2001
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed . .
Appeal from – Razgar, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2002
The claimant challenged the respondent’s certificate that his appeal was manifestly unfounded.
Held: The certificate was wrongly given. . .
Appeal from – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2-Dec-2002
The Claimant was a Tamil from Sri Lanka claiming asylum. He was married in 1991; his wife was also Tamil. In 1995 his claim for asylum in Germany failed. What then happened was disputed. The Claimant said that he voluntarily returned to Sri Lanka, . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
Cited – Atkinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s certification under s94 that his cliam for asylum was hopeless. He said that he had acted as an informer against criminal gangs in Jamaica, and that the state of Jamacia could not provide him . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Nadarajah and Amirhanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Dec-2003
The Secretary of State’s published policy was that, if legal proceedings were initiated, removal would not be treated as imminent even if it otherwise was. The Secretary of State also had an unpublished policy, namely that information that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183684

Edore v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 23 May 2003

The applicant challenged the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal which had reversed a decision of an adjudicator and restored the Secretary of state’s decision to deport her.
Held: The adjudicator’s decision was acknowledged to be proportionate, and struck a fair balance for the parties. As such it could not be overturned by the IAT. Where, as here, the facts were undisputed, the adjudicator’s decision on a human rights appeal under section 65 the question was only whether it was reasonable and just and proportionate. The balance struck by the Home Secretary was simply wrong.
‘in cases like the present where the essential facts are not in doubt or dispute, the adjudicator’s task on a human rights appeal under section 65 is to determine whether the decision under appeal (ex hypothesi a decision unfavourable to the appellant) was properly one within the decision-maker’s discretion, ie, was a decision which could reasonably be regarded as proportionate and as striking a fair balance between the competing interests in play. If it was, then the adjudicator cannot characterise it as a decision ‘not in accordance with the law’ and so, even if he personally would have preferred the balance to have been struck differently (ie, in the appellant’s favour), he cannot substitute his preference for the decision in fact taken.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Kay Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 716, Times 07-Jul-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2979

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Criticised – 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 – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183070

Koca v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SCS 22 Nov 2002

Judicial Review of a Determination of an Immigration Appeal Adjudicator dated 7th February, 2002 refusing the petitioner’s claim for asylum

Judges:

Lord Carloway

Citations:

[2002] ScotCS 300

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

see also – Koca v Secretary of State for the Home Department SCS 27-May-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181579

Regina (Harrison) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 13 Mar 2003

The claimant sought a review of the decision of the respondent not to respond to his request for a declaration as to his entitlement to citizenship.
Held: The question the claimant sought to be answered was one for the courts to answer, not the respondent. That is why the system gave no right of administrative review or appeal against the respondent’s refusal to acknowledge the claim for citizenship. Since the respondent had not determined any of the claimant’s rights, his human rights had not either been engaged.

Judges:

May, Arden Keene LJJ

Citations:

Times 15-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 432

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Citizenship Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Administrative, Immigration

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180992

Gjini, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Apr 2003

The appellant challenged the respondent’s decision to reduce the amount paid to her by way of asylum support benefit by the amount of child benefit she received.
Held: The applicant had failed to make proper disclosure to the court of the facts underlying her case. Since the case had begun, the Coucil had reviewed its policies and uprated the benefits payable. The evidence placed before the court as to the various benefits rates and calculations was weak. It was not possible to say that the method of calculation used by the Council was irrational or inaccurate, and the appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 558

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lloyd’s of London 1993
There is a duty to be performed by those who represent applicants for judicial review to make all appropriate enquiries and to disclose to the court all facts material to the application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180738

Regina (on the Application of Kanagasingham Kariharan and Kanagara) v Secretary of State for the Home Office: CA 30 Jul 2002

The applicants were subject to removal directions following the failures of their applications for asylum had failed. The decisions were made before the Human Rights Act came into effect, but the direction orders were made afterwards. They sought to challenge the directions on Human Rights grounds.
Held: They had a right of appeal since the removal directions were decisions under the Immigration Acts being decisions affecting the applicants right to enter into or remain in the UK. The decisions exercised a discretion, and were freestanding and themselves subject to the Human Rights Act.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Arden

Citations:

Times 13-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1102, [2003] QB 933

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Kariharan and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 15-Apr-2002
There is a right of appeal against removal directions under section 65 of the 1999 Act on the ground that removal would be in breach of a person’s human rights. Auld LJ was not impressed by an argument that a restrictive interpretation was necessary . .

Cited by:

Cited – BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others SC 26-Nov-2009
The court was asked whether the expression ‘an asylum claim, or a human rights claim’ in section 92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act includes any second or subsequent claim that the asylum seeker may make, or only a second or subsequent claim which has been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174435

Maqsood v The Special Adjudicator, The Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 3 Dec 2001

The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to proceed with his appeal in his absence. He, his advisers and his witness had gone to the wrong court. The court had changed the venue from previous hearings, but the notice of hearing had not been received. The decision was promulgated before the circumstances had been made clear.
Held: The officer was functus officio, and had been unable to re-open his decision. An immigrant deprived of the opportunity to present his case as a result of the negligence of his solicitors had no ground for complaint in law.

Judges:

Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000

Citing:

Cited – Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-Nov-1989
The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167280

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

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

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

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

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

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

B v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Serbia and Montenegro-Kosovo): IAT 17 Jun 2003

Citations:

[2003] UKIAT 00013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hysi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Jun-2005
The claimant appealed an order to be returned to Kosovo.
Held: As the son of a gypsy mother and and an Albanian father. As such, he would face persecution if returned if his mixed race parentage became known. If order to return he would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.192391

Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar: CA 17 Feb 1997

This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary of State.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Asylum seekers are not entitled merely because they lack money and accommodation to claim they automatically qualify under section 21(1)(a). They can claim as result of the 1996 Act that as a result of their predicament after they arrive in this country reach a state where they qualify under the subsection because of the effect upon them of the problems under which they are labouring. In addition to the lack of food and accommodation is to be added their inability to speak the language, their ignorance of this country and the fact they have been subject to the stress of coming to this country in circumstances which at least involve their contending to be refugees. Inevitably the combined effect of these factors with the passage of time will produce one or more of the conditions specifically referred to in section 21(1)(a). It is for the authority to decide whether they qualify. In making their decision, they can bear in mind the wide terms of the Direction which gives a useful introduction to the application of the subsection. The authorities can anticipate the deterioration which would otherwise take place in the asylum seekers condition by providing assistance under the section. They do not need to wait until the health of the asylum seeker has been damaged.

Judges:

The Master of The Rolls (Lord Woolf), Lord Justice Waite, Lord Justice Henry

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1032, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 85, (1998) 30 HLR 10, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504, (1997) 1 CCLR 85

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Cited – Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar CA 25-Jun-1996
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within . .
Cited – Rands v Oldroyd 1959
The ejusdem generis rule is, at best, a very secondary guide to the meaning of a statute. The all-important matter is to consider the purpose of the statute. A statute preventing a civil servant contracting for his employers with a company in which . .
Cited – Quazi v Quazi HL 1979
The husband had pronounced a talaq in Pakistan, in accordance with the 1961 Muslim Family Ordinance. The question was whether the English court had jurisdiction on the wife’s petition to dissolve the marriage and make consequential orders relating . .
Appeal from – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc QBD 8-Oct-1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc QBD 8-Oct-1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.141428

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Packeer: CA 16 Oct 1996

Renewed application, for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing leave to the applicant, who is a Sri Lankan citizen, to appeal against the determination by a Special Adjudicator dismissing his appeal against the refusal by the Secretary of State of his application for political asylum.

Judges:

Waite, Saville, Otton LJJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 747, [1997] Imm AR 110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140614

Hilal Al-Jedda: SIAC 18 Jul 2014

lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue

Judges:

Flaux J, Ward UTJ, Sir Stewart Eldon

Citations:

[2014] UKSIAC SC – 66 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
At QBD – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At ECHR (2) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SC – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.536373

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Ex Parte Canbolat: QBD 24 Feb 1997

The Home Secretary was entitled to take his own view that the French would properly apply their own asylum procedures when considering the return of an asylum seeker to that country.

Citations:

Times 24-Feb-1997

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87820

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi, Same v Same, ex parte Gawe: QBD 24 Feb 1994

The Secretary of State must state all the facts on which his opinion had based when ordering the deportation of an Asylum-seeker as to the safety of the destination country. ‘In a situation in which it is to be expected that most or all of the information about the asylum practices of third countries is in the hands of the Secretary of State, it would make a mockery of the special adjudicator’s independent duty of rigorous scrutiny if the Secretary of State, having balanced the pros and cons and come to his own conclusion about the safety of a Third Country, could rely upon the face of the certificate which he accordingly grants as sufficient to sustain the certificate on appeal, so long as the asylum-seeker is unable to produce enough of his or her own evidence to controvert it. ‘ and ‘Correspondingly, given the Secretary of State’s monitoring role and his opportunities to gather information through other organs of government, in particular the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it is incumbent, in my view, on the Home Office representative before a special adjudicator to disclose not only what facts are relied on in support of the certificate (and they may in many cases be simply that nothing at all is known to the detriment of the Third Country), but to disclose any factual material pointing in the opposite direction. The fact that the Secretary of State will himself have considered such material and rejected it in issuing his certificate cannot be relevant: if it were, the special adjudicator would become the handmaiden of the Secretary of State, incapable of exercising independent judgment except where an applicant was independently able to cast doubt upon the basis of the certificate. ‘ The court referred to the case of two refugees who had come to the United Kingdom from Colombia via Spain, and who were returned to Spain as a safe third country. According to a report of Amnesty International the two refugees were returned from Spain to Colombia without any substantive consideration of their claim for asylum. Sedley J. commented: ‘The asylum-seekers evidently did not know of the two cases: the Home Office, which I infer did know, did not consider itself under any obligation to draw them to the attention of the adjudicator; and if the adjudicator knew of them, he took them in each case to be off limits because they had not been canvassed in evidence. If this was the situation, I cannot believe that any reasonable observer would think that it had much to do with the standards of scrutiny and fairness which Lord Bridge was describing in Re Musisi, or indeed represented anything but legalistic technicalities. ‘ Beither applicant had had a fair hearing, and that the decisions of the two adjudicators fell to be quashed for breach of natural justice. ‘In each case the asylum-seeker was entitled to disclosure by the Secretary of State and the adjudicator was entitled to his assistance. The Secretary of State was in a position to afford these, but they were not afforded. ‘ The certificates of the Secretary of State should also be quashed, on the ground that his decision was logically untenable, and therefore irrational in law.

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-1994

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Musisi HL 1987
Mr Musisi sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor from Kenya. When that application looked as though it might fail, he claimed political asylum as a refugee from Uganda. His application for asylum was refused on the basis that he had come . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi and Another CA 21-Apr-1994
The Home Secretary has no duty to show the factual evidence he had relied upon as to the safety of a deportee’s destination country.
The Home Secretary need not state all information on which his certificate was based. The court recognised the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87826

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ademola Onibiyo: QBD 24 Jan 1996

The applicant, a Nigerian, applied for judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to revoke a deportation order. He had overstayed his limited leave. He wanted the respondent to refer new material back to the immigration authorities. The respondent refused to treat this request as a new application.
Held: A new ground for asylum arising after an application was rejected does not create a new appeal right.

Citations:

Independent 24-Jan-1996, Times 29-Jan-1996

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo CA 28-Mar-1996
More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87828

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Naheed Ejaz: QBD 23 Jul 1993

Using somebody else’s British passport, the applicant’s husband had masqueraded as a British citizen. The applicant had applied under section 6(2) of the 1981 Act for naturalisation as a British citizen on the ground that she was married to a British citizen and she had duly obtained a certificate of naturalisation.
Held: Although her husband was not a British citizen, the applicant’s citizenship existed until she was deprived of it under section 40 of the 1981 Act. Section 40 appied only to the person who was decsribed in the certificate of naturalisation. If he was not that the person then the certificate could grant him nothing.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Times 23-Jul-1993, [1994] QB 496

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 6(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ejaz CA 7-Dec-1993
The question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to treat a woman, who had obtained naturalisation as the wife of a British citizen, as an illegal entrant on the basis that her husband later turned out not in fact to be a British . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hicks CA 12-Apr-2006
The claimant was held as a suspected terrorist by the US government in Guantanamo Bay. He had Australian citizenship but qualified also for British citizenship. He had sought that citizenship and protection. The secretary of state appealed an order . .
Cited – Bibi and others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka CA 18-Jul-2007
The deceased had come to live in the UK and obtain citizenship under somebody else’s identity. After his death his wife and children sought clearance to come to live here.
Held: Her appeal failed. The residence of her late husband was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87740

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei: Admn 20 Mar 1997

A Home Secretary must have evidence before rejecting special adjudicator’s findings of fact.

Citations:

Times 28-Mar-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 301

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei Admn 8-Nov-1996
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei CA 12-Nov-1997
An immigration adjudicator, after a hearing, had rejected the applicant’s asylum appeal, but accepted that he had left Iran because he had had an adulterous relationship;
Held: The Home Secretary was wrong to depart from the special . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137246

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Lumbala: Admn 28 Feb 1997

Application for leave to challenge the decisions of the Secretary of State to refuse to exercise his discretion to refer the applicant’s case back to a Special Adjudicator and the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to exercise his discretion to grant exceptional leave to remain.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 202

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137147

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei: Admn 8 Nov 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 214

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei Admn 20-Mar-1997
A Home Secretary must have evidence before rejecting special adjudicator’s findings of fact. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei CA 12-Nov-1997
An immigration adjudicator, after a hearing, had rejected the applicant’s asylum appeal, but accepted that he had left Iran because he had had an adulterous relationship;
Held: The Home Secretary was wrong to depart from the special . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136762

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Begum: QBD 1986

The court declared invalid a discrete part of one of the Immigration Rules which had a discriminatory effect which operated unjustly in the cases of those against whom it discriminated.

Judges:

Simon Brown J

Citations:

[1986] IAR 385

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Manelfi Admn 25-Oct-1996
The applicant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to employ him to work at GCHQ, which had a policy not to employ anyone with non-British parents save exceptionally. The claimant said this was racially discriminatory.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.238153

TN v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Dec 2011

‘The claimant, an unaccompanied child, challenges the Secretary of State’s decision of 12 November 2010 refusing his claim for asylum and for humanitarian protection and granting him discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a shorter period than would enable him to appeal against that decision to the First-tier Tribunal. ‘

Judges:

Lindblom J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3296 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – TN (Afghanistan) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Dec-2013
The applicants had arrived in the UK as minors fleeing Afghanistan. They now challenged grant of a discretionary leave to remain limited to expire withiin one year. . .
At first instance – 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, Children

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459744

T v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Nov 1994

Random violence without a causal connection with any political purpose was not a political crime.

Judges:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Citations:

Independent 04-Nov-1994, Times 09-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Geneva Convention 1951 33(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – T v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-May-1996
The applicant for asylum had been involved in an airport bomb attack killing 10 people. Asylum had been refused on the basis that this was a non-political crime. Though the organisation had political objectives, those were only indirectly associated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89679

T v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 22 May 1996

The applicant for asylum had been involved in an airport bomb attack killing 10 people. Asylum had been refused on the basis that this was a non-political crime. Though the organisation had political objectives, those were only indirectly associated with the bomb attach which was disproportionate to those aims.
Held: The involvement by the applicant in a bomb attack disqualified him from applying for asylum. The use of terrorism denied the possibility of protection for political views. For a crime to be political in nature, there had to be shown a direct relationship between the crime and the political aim. Not all terrorist acts fall outside the protection of the Convention, and not all means of investigating suspected terrorist acts fall outside the protection of the Convention.
Lord Mustill said: ‘although it is easy to assume that the appellant invokes a ‘right of asylum’, no such right exists. Neither under international nor English municipal law does a fugitive have any direct right to insist on being received by a country of refuge. Subject only to qualifications created by statute this country is entirely free to decide, as a matter of executive discretion, what foreigners it allows to remain within its boundaries.’
Lord Lloyd of Berwick said that in a case concerning an international convention it was obviously desirable that decisions in different jurisdictions should, so far as possible, be kept in line with each other.

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Citations:

Times 23-May-1996, [1996] AC 742, [1996] Imm AR 443, [1996] 2 WLR 766, [1996] 2 All ER 865, [1996] UKHL 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Geneva Convention 1951 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – T v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Nov-1994
Random violence without a causal connection with any political purpose was not a political crime. . .
Considered – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Cheng HL 16-Apr-1973
Lord Diplock traced the history of the political offence exception to offences requiring extradition, and emphasised the need for a connection between the impugned conduct and changes to government or government policy: ‘My Lords, the noun that is . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 – 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 – Sidhu and Others v British Airways Plc; Abnett (Known as Sykes) v Same HL 13-Dec-1996
The claimants had been air passengers who were unlawfully detained in Kuwait, when their plane was captured whilst on the ground on the invasion of Kuwait. They sought damages for that detention.
Held: There are no exceptions to the Warsaw . .
Cited – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89678

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex Parte Jeyeanthan: Admn 3 Apr 1998

An appeal by the Home Secretary against a ruling that he had to use the same prescribed form as would be used by the asylum seeker. The use of a letter which omitted a substantial and important declaration was invalid. Lord Woolf MR made plain the court’s general reluctance to hold that the effect of failure to comply with a procedural requirement is to render proceedings null: ‘what can be the very undesirable consequences of a procedural requirement which is made so fundamental that any departure from the requirement makes everything that happens thereafter irreversibly a nullity’.

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 23-Apr-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 395

Statutes:

Asylum (Appeals) Procedure Rules 1993 No 1661 22(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-1999
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police CA 19-May-2005
Mr Seal noisily objected to a neighbour blocking in his car. Police were called who took him into custody under the 1983 Act. He was released several days later, and eventually sought damages for his wrongful treatment. He had failed to first seek . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
Cited – McKay, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another CA 9-Jun-2005
An enforcement notice was challenged on the grounds of it having been made without the appropriate identification of the land at issue. . .
Cited – SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jan-2008
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.86923

Secretary of State for The Home Department v Robinson (Jamaica): CA 2 Feb 2018

Right of third-country national parent with criminal record to reside in member state – proportionality guidance

Judges:

Underhill, Lindblom, Singh LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 85, [2018] 4 WLR 81, [2018] WLR(D) 62, [2018] Imm AR 892

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Robinson (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Dec-2020
This appeal concerns the extent to which a non-member state national, who is the parent of a dependent European Union citizen child, is protected against deportation from the territory of the EU pursuant to the principle in Ruiz Zambrano . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.604160

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 experts in their field and are provided with a great deal of background information in relation to countries from which refugees might be expected to arrive. The Home Secretary need not disclose all the information on which he based his decision to issue a certificate as to the safety of a third country for return of an asylum seeker.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Citations:

Times 17-Feb-1996, Gazette 06-Mar-1996, Independent 21-Feb-1996, [1996] 1 All ER 641, [1996] UKHL 9, [1996] Imm AR 46, [1996] 1 WLR 298

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Geneva Convention 1951, Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 8

Citing:

Cited – Liversidge v Sir John Anderson HL 3-Nov-1941
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents.
Held: The . .
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 Mehari QBD 1994
A Special Adjudicator is not limited to checking whether the Secretary of State has some material on which he might give such a certificate. He must make an independent judgment and consider de novo whether he is satisfied that the country was a . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Thavathevathasan CA 1994
The court discussed the task of a Special Adjudicator: ‘Clearly the Special Adjudicator is not bound by the Home Secretary’s certificate. In other words, he does not merely wield a rubber stamp. He must consider whether, on the material before the . .
Cited – 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.’ . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran HL 16-Dec-1987
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 . .
Cited – Dursun v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1993
The Home Secretary is able to collect information about the policies of other countries from many sources. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Musisi HL 1987
Mr Musisi sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor from Kenya. When that application looked as though it might fail, he claimed political asylum as a refugee from Uganda. His application for asylum was refused on the basis that he had come . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi and Another CA 21-Apr-1994
The Home Secretary has no duty to show the factual evidence he had relied upon as to the safety of a deportee’s destination country.
The Home Secretary need not state all information on which his certificate was based. The court recognised the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Marghia (Procedural Fairness) UTIAC 25-Jul-2014
AIT The common law duty of fairness is essentially about procedural fairness. There is no absolute duty at common law to make decisions which are substantively ‘fair’. The Court will not interfere with decisions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87822

Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte M etc: CA 17 Feb 1997

The court recognised the potential role of local authorities under section 21(1)(a) in meeting the needs of those seeking asylum and otherwise, but having benefits withheld pending determination of their claims. Asylum seekers who had been excluded from the benefits system are to be supported by the local authority.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Waite, Henry LJJ

Citations:

Times 19-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 3095, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 85, (1998) 30 HLR 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SL v Westminster City Council SC 9-May-2013
The applicant for assistance from the respondent Council under the 1948 Act was a destitute, homeless failed asylum seeker. He had been admitted to hospital for psychiatric care, but the Council had maintained that his condition was part of and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Local Government, Immigration

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86802

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Savas: ECJ 23 May 2000

A convention between the European Union and Turkey had direct effect under one article, but was not sufficiently detailed in other provisions to give a right to an individual to enforce its provisions. The article required Turkish nationals not to be treated worse than EU nationals, but did not itself confer a right of residence.
Europa EEC-Turkey Association – Restrictions on freedom of establishment and right of residence – Article 13 of the Association Agreement and Article 41 of the Additional Protocol – Direct effect – Scope – Turkish national unlawfully present in the host Member State.

Citations:

Times 23-May-2000, C-37/98, [2000] ECR 1-2927, [2000] EUECJ C-37/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement

Citing:

reference from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Savas Admn 24-Apr-1997
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Savas, Regina (on the Application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2001
. .
Cited – Temiz, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Oct-2006
The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to give him permission to stay in the United Kingdom. As a Turkish national he had absconded after being ordered to be removed, and had since gone into business here.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85537

Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Dec 1999

The degree of protection from non-state persecution available to an asylum seeker, is a relevant factor in asylum applications. Where that protection was inadequate, for reasons not related to the nature of that persecution, that also was relevant. It affected the issues of whether persecution existed, whether the fear of it was well founded, and whether the fear of persecution made the protection of the state unavailable. A state cannot always guarantee the safety of its citizens. If the matter of protection is treated simply as an aspect of assessing the existence of a real risk of an abuse of rights, asylum would be granted even although there was . . a reasonable level of state protection. But that would be contrary to the basic intention of the Convention. The sufficiency of State protection is not measured by the existence of a real risk of an abuse of rights but by the availability of a system for the protection of the citizen and a reasonable willingness by the state to operate it.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ, Ward LJ, Hale LJ

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jan-2000, [1999] EWCA Civ 3026, [2000] Imm AR 205, [2000] INLR 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 1A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .
Cited – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81478

El-Yassini v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ECJ 11 Mar 1999

The agreement giving Moroccan citizens rights of residence within the EU did not require a member state to renew a residence permit after the original purpose was satisfied, though not where work permit extended beyond the original residence permit.

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1999, C-416/96

Statutes:

Co-operation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco

Immigration, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80306

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 leave the UK.
Held: The letter asking a claimant to make arrangements to return to his or her own European state was not sufficient of itself to remove his right to claim benefits.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1997, Times 01-Dec-1997, [1997] UKHL 50, [1998] 1 All ER 129, [1997] 1 WLR 1640, [1998] 1 FLR 444, [1998] 1 FCR 119, [1998] Fam Law 193

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 21(3)(b), Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 175, Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Stanislaus Pieck ECJ 3-Jul-1980
Any formality for the purpose of granting leave, coupled with a passport or an identity card check at the frontier, was contrary to article 3(2) of Directive 68/360 E.E.C. which prohibited Member States from demanding an entry visa or equivalent . .
Cited – Centre Public D’Aide Sociale De Courcelles v Lebon ECJ 18-Jun-1987
A right to equal treatment with regard to social and tax advantages accorded by article 7(2) of Regulation No. 1612/68 E.E.C. applied only to workers and not to nationals of Member States who move in search of employment. The latter were entitled . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Vitale; Regina v Same Ex Parte Do Amaral QBD 18-Apr-1995
A European Union citizen’s right to stay in UK is not unqualified, he must expect to have to seek or find work. The decision of the Home Secretary could be judicially reviewed and ‘in the course of his appeal before the Social Security Appeal . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Barnet v Ismail and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
The court considered the entitlement to housing support of nationals of other EEA states receiving Income Support here despite their being still subject to immigration control.
Held: Such EEA nationals were eligible for housing benefit. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79052

O v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 3 Apr 2012

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s continued detention pending deportation of her after her diagnosis with a medical condition.
Held: Lang J refused her permission to apply for judicial review. She had to decide: ‘whether the circumstances had changed such that the detention had become arguably unlawful under either Hardial Singh principles, as submitted, or because of an arguable failure on the part of the Secretary State properly to apply her policy on the mentally ill.’

Judges:

Lang J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2899 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At Admn – O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .
At Admn – Ogunbiyi, Regina (on The Application of) v Southend County Court and Another Admn 19-Mar-2015
Application for judicial review of a decision of a Circuit Judge at the County Court, (a) refusing permission to appeal again the judgment of a Deputy District Judge following a trial of the claim for damages again the claimant under a hire purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616743

B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 8 Feb 2018

Bail conditions only after detention

B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether there exists a power under the 1971 Act to grant immigration bail to a person who can no longer be lawfully detained.’
Held: The HS’ appeal failed. The statutory provisions allowed limits to be placed on an individuals freedom and had to be strictly and restrictively interpreted. That would not allow the addition of such a power by inference.
Parliament is presumed not to interfere with the liberty of a subject without making such an intention clear. The focus here was on a power not of executive detention but to grant bail. Being detained was a condition precedent for the question of bail to arise.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2018] UKSC 5, [2018] WLR(D) 81, [2018] AC 418, [2018] HRLR 10, [2018] 2 All ER 759, [2018] 2 WLR 651, [2018] INLR 315, UKSC 2015/0147

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, Sc Sumary, SC Video Summary, SC 2017 Nov 14 am Video, SC 2017 Nov 14 pm Video, SC 2017 Nov 15 am Video, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SIAC – B v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 30-Jul-2008
Appeal against an order made by the Secretary of State that it will be conducive to the public good that he should be deported, on the grounds that his removal is in the interests of national security. The appellant said that he would not be safe if . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
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 . .
Cited – Regina (Konan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2004
The claimants alleged that their immigration detention had been unlawful.
Held: Collins J said: ‘Since the detention at least since 24 June 2002 was contrary to the defendant’s own policy as published in Chapter 38, it was unlawful. In so . .
At CA – B v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-May-2015
The appellant was detained under immigration rules. He refused to provide details of his nationality and now complained of his continuing detention in the light of a finding that he was unlikely to be returnable to Algeria, that being what was . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
See Also – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 30-Jan-2013
B had been under arrest on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity, but had not revealed his identity, in contempt of court orders to do so, so that the respondent was unable to secure a destiny for his deportation. He had been sentenced to . .
See Also – B v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment of four months imposed for his refusal to reveal his true identity. He was in custody suspected of terrorist activities. The identity he had given had been shown to be false, and the Algerian . .
Cited – I, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 28-Jun-2002
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 . .
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 – Stellato v The Ministry of Justice CA 14-Dec-2010
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 . .
Cited – Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
Cited – In re Wasfi Suleman Mahmod Admn 17-Jan-1994
Laws J considered the Hardial Singh principles, adding: ‘While, of course, Parliament is entitled to confer powers of administrative detention without trial, the courts will see to it that where such a power is conferred the statute that confers it . .
Cited – Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .
Cited – AR, Regina (on The Application of) (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Jul-2016
The court was asked ‘If bail is granted by the First Tier Tribunal on conditions, how long do these conditions last and does the Secretary of State or her immigration officers have authority to vary or relax those conditions?’
Held: Paragraph . .
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 . .
Cited – Khadir, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Jun-2005
The applicant who had entered England hidden in a lorry, claimed asylum, and had his claim rejected. It was said that as an Iraqi Kurd, he would be safe in the Kurdish area of Iraq. No safe means had been found of ensuring his return over some four . .
Cited – Stellato v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-Dec-2006
In 1998, the prisoner had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He had been released on licence after serving two thirds of that sentence, but then recalled on three occasions. He now sought unconditional release after serving three quarters of . .
Cited – Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others Admn 9-Aug-2012
The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.604212

Regina (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator: Admn 16 Jul 2002

The appellant challenged an order denying him asylum and for his return to Pakistan. He said that his return would infringe his human rights be exposing him to denial of his rights to freedom of thought and religious belief.
Held: The considerations under article 9 were the same as those already expounded by the court with regard to article 6 in this situation. There is a permitted derogation under both articles for considerations of immigration control. The most the court could do would be to consider whether there was be a flagrant interference with the right. That did not apply here.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

Times 05-Sep-2002

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 9, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.174788

Regina (Khan) v Oxfordshire County Council: QBD 4 Oct 2002

The applicant sought review of the authority’s decision not to offer her housing. She was subject to immigration control. She had been the victim of domestic violence and of abduction.
Held: The authority could provide assistance under either Act, unless prohibited by statute. The limitation in the 1948 statute did apply to restrict the authority’s decision under the 2000 Act. Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances the decision not to provide assistance was unreasonable, and review was granted.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

Gazette 31-Oct-2002, Times 04-Nov-2002

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 115, National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Immigration, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.177845

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ex parte Chahal: QBD 5 Apr 1993

The Home Secretary need not consider any risk of torture as an issue separate from that of persecution, when considering making an order for deportation.

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Apr-1993

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Chahal CA 27-Oct-1993
Chahal was a Sikh separatist leader who was refused asylum and whom the Secretary of State proposed to deport to India as a threat to national security here.
Held: The Home Secretary must balance the need to deport against against any threat . .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Extradition

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87941

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Owalabi: QBD 3 Jan 1996

The Home Secretary may evaluate fresh material himself under the section, without always referring the case back to the adjudicator.

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1996

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Adopted – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Bellow 25-May-1995
. .
Adopted – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Khaldoon 8-Nov-1995
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87891

Patel v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 13 Dec 2017

Judges:

Lord Justice Lindblom
Lord Justice Irwin
And
Lady Justice Thirlwall

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 2028, [2018] Imm AR 584, [2018] 1 WLR 5245, [2018] 2 CMLR 22, [2018] INLR 179, [2018] 2 All ER 1093

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Patel v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Dec-2019
Zambrano states that a non-member state national (‘TCN’) parent of an EU citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to
reside in the EU. This is solely to avoid the EU citizen child being deprived of the substance of their Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.601452

Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship): ECJ 8 Mar 2011

ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the previous exercise by him of his right of free movement in the territory of the Member States – Grant, in the same circumstances, of a derived right of residence, to an ascendant relative, a third country national, upon whom the minor child is dependent – Consequences of the right of residence of the minor child on the employment law requirements to be fulfilled by the third-country national ascendant relative of that minor
A Colombian national had been living in Belgium with his wife, and working (and paying social security contributions), but without a right to reside. Their three children, born between 2003 and 2005, acquired Belgian nationality at birth, and with it European citizenship and the right of free movement, under article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). When in 2005 he lost his job, he was refused unemployment benefit, because under the relevant national law that depended on his having a right to reside. The European court held that the refusal of such a right was unlawful because it would result in the children being deprived of effective enjoyment of their rights as European citizens.

Judges:

Skouris P

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-34/09, C-34/09, [2011] All ER (EC) 491, [2011] 2 FCR 491, [2011] ECR I-1177, [2011] Imm AR 521, [2012] QB 265, [2011] INLR 481, ECLI:EU:C:2011:124, [2011] 2 CMLR 46, [2012] 2 WLR 886

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, TFEU 20

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 30-Sep-2010
ECJ Opinion – Articles 18, 20 and 21 TFEU – Fundamental rights as general principles of European Union law – Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – European citizenship – . .

Cited by:

Cited – Campbell (Exclusion; Zambrano) Jamaica UTIAC 21-Mar-2013
UTIAC 1. Exclusion decisions are not be confused with exclusion orders.
2. It is settled law that the Secretary of State has the power to make an exclusion decision: see R (on the application of Naik) v . .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Cited – Dereci and Others (European Citizenship) ECJ 15-Nov-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Citizenship of the Union – Right of residence of nationals of third countries who are family members of Union citizens – Refusal based on the citizen’s failure to exercise the right to freedom . .
Cited – HC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-Nov-2017
This appeal concerns the rights of so-called ‘Zambrano carers’ and their children to financial support from the state. The appellant, an Algerian national married and had children here, but was refused housing after the break up the marriage. HC . .
Cited – Sanneh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 30-Apr-2012
Challenge to payment of Zambrano Income Support . .
Cited – DH (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-Dec-2012
Elias LJ said: ‘The right of residence is a right to reside in the territory of the EU. It is not a right to any particular quality of life or to any particular standard of living. Accordingly, there is no impediment to exercising the right to . .
Cited – Sanneh, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another Admn 10-Apr-2013
. .
Cited – Sanneh and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 10-Feb-2015
The appeals concerned the question of whether ‘Zambrano carers’, who are non-EU citizens responsible for the care of an EU citizen child, are entitled to social assistance (that is, non-contributory welfare benefits) on the same basis as EU citizens . .
Cited – Secretary Of State For The Home Department v CS (Judgment : Citizenship Of The Union) ECJ 13-Sep-2016
The Court of Justice held: ‘that there are very specific situations in which, despite the fact that the secondary law on the right of residence of third-country nationals does not apply and the Union citizen concerned has not made use of his freedom . .
Cited – Rendon Marin (Judgment : Citizenship Of The Union) ECJ 13-Sep-2016
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 20 and 21 TFEU – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member . .
Cited – Patel v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Dec-2019
Zambrano states that a non-member state national (‘TCN’) parent of an EU citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to
reside in the EU. This is solely to avoid the EU citizen child being deprived of the substance of their Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration, Children

Leading Case

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.452172