- Telephone
020 7923 4020
- Fax
020 7923 3320
- Crime Helpline
07920 077 057
- Domestic Violence
Emergency Helpline
07920 077 054
-
This case concerned a vulnerable mother and child whom the UKBA were trying to remove to Latvia under the third country (Dublin II) regulation. We argued that due to the mother’s mental health illness and risk of suicide, it would be a breach of Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR if they were to be removed to Latvia. The medical reports and evidence available confirmed that there was a risk that the mother would act on her suicidal ideations if she were to be removed. This would in turn affect the wellbeing of her child.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that Chapter 45 of the Border Agency’s Operational Enforcement Manuel was defective. The Court confirmed that the policy was not compliant with Section 55 of the Borders Act 2009 and considered the policy to be a one-way street. This is because the policy was lacking ‘any slip-road for cases in which it has become apparent since the process was initiated that there is now a real risk of violating a Convention right if return is proceeded with.’ (Paragraph 34).
The Court went on to consider whether on the evidence before the court there was a real risk that removal of the mother and her baby to Latvia will result in a violation of the Convention rights of either or both of them. Although the Court acknowledged the defect in the policy it went on to decide that the material before the court did not reach the required threshold.
However, the Court stated that the law calls for a constant and careful watch on the family unit and a sensitive and appropriate response to the issues raised by the professionals. The Court stated that ‘it does not permit the Border Agency to treat the claimant as if she were now on a one-way street from which there was no exit’.
We are currently considering our position in respect of an application to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
-
The claimant seeks by way of judicial review a declaration that he was unlawfully detained for 46 days in July and August 2009 by the UKBA on behalf of the second Respondent, the Secretary of State, and damages for false imprisonment and for breach of Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention. The UKBA had detained the claimant under the Detained Fast Track (DFT) procedure. The claimant contended that it had no right to do so. Under this procedure asylum seekers are detained at immigration detention facilities while their claims and any appeal are determined. The stated objective of the procedure is to enable straightforward claims to be determined speedily. Under the procedure, immigration officers of the UKBA are entrusted with making the decision on allocation to the DFT. There is a right to appeal to Immigration Judges to remove a case from the procedure or grant bail.
-
The Claimant is an Algerian national who entered the United Kingdom in 1997. He has a history of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, mental health problems and offending. He served a prison sentence between November 2008 and June 2009. At the conclusion of the custodial period of his sentence, he was detained for the purpose of deportation on 8 June 2009. In this case he has challenged the legality of his continuing detention and sought an order for his release. Following a hearing on 12 and 13 May 2011, in an Order dated 20 May, I directed that the Claimant should be released from detention by 4.00pm on Monday 23 May 2011 upon stipulated conditions. That Order does not prevent his subsequent deportation to Algeria. In this judgment I set out the reasons for that Order.
-
These are appeals against decisions as to costs made by High Court Judges in immigration cases following consent orders. AK appeals against an order of Mitting J dated 15 September 2010, TZ (Eritrea) against an order of Lloyd Jones J dated 23 September 2010, RO against a decision of Mitting J dated 20 December 2010, Filmon Bahta against an order of King J dated 21 December 2010 and KD against an order of Edwards-Stuart J dated 17 February 2011. Following orders whereby disputes between the appellants and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the Secretary of State”) were resolved without a contested court hearing, each judge declined to make an order for costs in the appellants’ favour.
-
This is an appeal (for which permission was given on paper by Ward LJ on 10 May 2011) against an order made by Her Honour Judge Judith Hughes QC on 21 March 2011 refusing an application by the appellant for a residential parenting assessment pursuant to section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989 (the Act). It raises a number of important issues for practising family lawyers and for judges, and it is principally for this reason that we reserved judgment at the conclusion of the argument on 22 June 2011.
-
The Claimant arrived in the UK in November 2002 and was granted leave to remain as a student. He raped a 21 year old female passenger in May 2004 when he was working as a rickshaw driver. Following a trial before His Honour Judge Price and a jury at the Snaresbrook Crown Court in March 2005 he was convicted and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. The judge made no recommendation for deportation. He added a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) prohibiting the defendant for an indefinite period "from becoming involved in any form of private hire transportation". As a consequence of the conviction and sentence the defendant was to be placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely. An application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused by the single judge and was not renewed to the full Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
-
This is an appeal with the leave of the single judge against sentence. The appellant, Oshane Everton Rose, born 21 May 1989 is now aged 21. On 14 December 2004 at Snaresbrook Crown Court, he pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to an offence of rape of a child aged 12 years contrary to section 5(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003. By reason of the age of the complainant, whom we shall call K, she could not in law consent to the act of oral intercourse alleged. On his change of plea the appellant submitted a basis in which he said that (1) he believed the girl to be a similar age to himself, or about 15 years (2) the sexual activity was consensual, and (3) he was not in possession of a knife. The basis of plea was not accepted.
-
These conjoined appeals pose a question which is as difficult to answer as it is easy to state: in deciding whether a foreign national facing deportation has been detained for too long, does time which he has spent appealing against deportation count? If it does, then sufficiently protracted legal proceedings will sooner or later secure his release however weak his case and however strong the reasons for detaining him. If it does not, then a detainee with a sound legal challenge to removal or deportation may be penalised for asserting his rights by years of incarceration. So the question inexorably raises another question: is there a middle way?
-
The claimant is a national of Eritrea first entered this country in September 2005 using a false name and passport and claimed asylum the following day. On 27 January 2006 his application was refused. He appealed unsuccessfully and his appeal rights were finally exhausted when his application to this court for a reconsideration of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal's decision was rejected on 30 March 2006. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, held that although there had been an error in the transposition of art 11 of Council Directive EC 2003/9 (laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers), it was not sufficiently serious as to found a claim for damages. Further, there had been no breach of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
-
Having, on 29th July 2010, in exercise of its power under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 15th October 2010 not to grant AH a public hearing, the Upper Tribunal now re-makes the decision in exercise of its powers under section 12(2)(b)(ii).
-
The main issue in this application is whether the Claimant's further representations dated 29 July 2009 and 25 August 2009 entitle him to an in-country right of appeal under sections 82 and 92 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ("the 2002 Act"). This depends on whether in refusing the Claimant's further representations in this case the Defendant either made, or should have made, an "immigration decision" as defined in section 82 of the 2002 Act. For it is only if the Defendant makes an immigration decision that there is a right of appeal.
-
Defining Article 1F(c) and its application. Is attacking the UN, an act sufficient to bring you within the exclusion clause of Article 1F? This will be the the first case to deal with the issue of Article 1F(C) within the Supreme Court.
-
This judicial review application concerned a refugee from Afghanistan who had This is the Appellant's appeal against the decision of an Immigration following a hearing at Manchester in November 2009. The Immigration Judge allowed the Respondent's appeal against the decision of the Appellant made in June 2009 to give directions for his removal from the UK. The Appellant sought permission to appeal on three grounds. Firstly the Designated Immigration Judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for finding that the Respondent enjoyed family life with [ ] and the children. Secondly, that the Immigration Judge failed to have full regard to the evidence of criminality as part of the proportionality assessment and thirdly he applied an incorrect test thereby creating an artificially high threshold for the Secretary of State to make out his case.
-
The Court of Appeal in a judgement issued on 11th November 2010 have described the actions of the Secretary of State as making ‘a shameful decision’ and found that their attempt to stifle the right of an appeal was ‘a serious abuse of power’. In an important judgement the Court of Appeal clarified the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear appeals against these decisions in certain circumstances, whilst underlining that judicial review will always lie against decisions of this kind.
-
This case is a challenge to the past and current detention of the Claimant Ms OM. It further challenges the lawfulness of the actions of the Defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("SSHD"), in refusing to treat recent submissions as constituting a fresh claim giving the Claimant a right of appeal against deportation whilst in the UK, for otherwise she will be deported. Orders have been made for the anonymity of the Claimant and her children but they have been referred to openly in court and I propose to preserve anonymity in respect of her and her male child S born in 2000 and her female child M born in 2005.
-
Mr Brill appeals from two decisions of two different Employment Judges made prior to the hearing of his substantive claims against his former employer. By Notice of Appeal dated 8 January 2009 he appeals from the decision of Employment Judge Metcalf of 10 December 2008 to revoke permission to amend his ET1, such permission having been granted by Employment Judge Bedeau. Employment Judge Metcalf refused permission to amend the ET1. The appeal from the decision of Employment Judge Metcalfe of 10 December 2008 to revoke permission to amend the ET1 is allowed. The application to revoke permission to amend the ET1 and, if necessary, the application to amend the ET1 are remitted to an Employment Judge for decision. The appeal from the judgment of Employment Judge Southam of 6 January 2009 is dismissed.
-
The Upper Tribunal in exercise of its powers under s12(2)(a) Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 sets aside the decision of the First–tier Tribunal dated 15 October 2009 not to grant AH a public hearing, and directs that the question be considered and determined by the Upper Tribunal following a further hearing (at which we invite the Department of Health to appear) for the purpose of considering further evidence.
-
A Somali national arrived in the UK in 2003 when his asylum claim was initially refused. The Appellant subsequently applied for permission to work in the UK which was refused in 2007. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the case was covered by Article 11(2) European Union "Reception Directive". The case then went onto the Supreme Court.
-
This appeal raises an important question as to the effect of Article 32 of the Refugee Convention, namely whether a person who is, or is recognised to be, a refugee within the meaning of the Convention and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees is by reason of that status alone entitled to the protection of Article 32 of the Convention, which precludes removal "save on grounds of national security or public order".
-
The case raised the issue of how the courts should respond to repeat claims for asylum or human rights protection where an individual makes further submissions or allegations while in the UK or having left and on return to the UK. The appellant, an Iraqi citizen had made repeated claims beginning in November 2000 on the basis that he feared ill treatment in Iraq due to his involvement in illegal trade. The court dismissed his appeal for asylum and found his story to be inconsistent particularly as it had changed in his final submissions and he had no evidence to support his claims.
-
This judicial review application concerned a refugee from Afghanistan who had previously been treated as having claimed asylum in Greece under the provisions of the Dublin Regulation. The appellant claimed that he was unlawfully detained by the UK authorities on his illegal entry into the UK and made a claim damages for his detention. The court decided that the UK authorities were under a duty under the Dublin Regulation to return the appellant to Greece as soon as Greece would accept responsibility. The appellants appeal and claim for damages dismissed as there was sufficient reason for the authorities to believe that the appellant was an abscond risk and his detention was legal.
-
The appellant, an Afghan national initially sought asylum unsuccessfully in the UK in 2002. Since then, the appellant’s mental health problems surfaced and he was diagnosed with depression and required continued medication. The appellant wanted to overturn the decision of the Secretary of State that an immigration judge would dismiss a subsequent appeal for asylum on the basis that the removal of the appellant from the UK would constitute a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. It was decide that this should be treated as a medical case but that the mental illness of a failed asylum seeker could not make that case an “exceptional case” where it would be a breach of Article 3 to return that asylum seeker to his country of origin. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed.
-
The claimant, an Eritrean national arrived in the UK in 2009 and it emerged that he had been fingerprinted in Italy in 2008. The UK made a formal request for Italy to accept responsibility for the claimant’s asylum application under the Dublin Regulation and the claimant’s UK application for asylum was refused. The claimant challenged the Secretary of States decision on the basis that (a) the UK was in breach of its obligations under Article 3 because he would face inhumane treatment once returned to Italy and (b) the Secretary of State should have exercised his discretion to accept responsibility for dealing with the claimant’s asylum claim due to the Italian authorities treatment of asylum seekers and various other breaches of European Union directives. The court decided that there was insufficient evidence that the claimant would suffer ill treatment under Article 3 and that Italy did not avoid its internal obligations towards asylum seekers. The claim was dismissed.
-
The claimant, a national from the Philippines was seeking to challenge the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer, Manila (ECO) to refuse her entry into the UK as a student. The supporting documentation for the claimant’s application stated that she wanted to study at an institution which was found by the ECO not to be a “bona fide education institution” under paragraph 57(i)(b) of Part 3 of the Immigration Rules. The claimant had however since her initial application registered as a student at a college to complete a course that the court considered would meet the criteria of paragraph 57. It therefore decided that the ECO should re-consider the claimant’s application for the entry into the UK as a student.
-
The Appellant, a Nigerian citizen, married a British citizen, her first husband, in 1994 before remarrying in 2008. In 1998, the Appellant’s 5 children joined her in the UK on visitors’ visas. From 2007 until 2008, the Appellant lived with her second husband, her 5 children and her 3 grandchildren in a 3-bedroom flat, let by the Respondent. The Appellant contended that she was entitled to bid for a larger property under the Respondent's housing allocation scheme. The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant’s application for judicial review was rightly refused since the Respondent, despite being entitled to do so, was not compelled to take into account the Appellant’s adult children when deciding what accommodation was suitable under s160A(3) of the Housing Act 1996.
-
E was the daughter of Turkish and British parents who were married. The mother applied for permission to appeal against an order made in relation to her daughter under the Hague Convention 1980 and the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. The Court of Appeal held that the mother's removal of E to England had been a wrongful abduction from Turkey within the meaning of the Convention and that the Convention required him to order E's return to Turkey.
-
The sons of well known Serb collaborators claimed to be at risk of losing their lives if they were returned to Kosovo. It was submitted that the collaboration by the Appellants’ relatives with Serb military authorities would put the appelants’ lives at risk. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court held that it was unable to challenge the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's determination since the Court was satisfied that the Office of Communities, Return and Minority Affairs' position was not confined to the passage in paragraph 120 of the determination about being returned.
-
The Appellants contend that it was unlawful for Brent to contract out the carrying out of its reviews, with the result that the reviews carried out in each of their cases were themselves ultra vires and unlawful. They also contend that there was an appearance of bias on the part of Mr Perdios which meant that their reviews were not fairly conducted and that their rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights were infringed.
-
These two appeals have been heard together because they raise a common point to which different judges sitting in the Administrative Court have given different answers. The point concerns the proper interpretation and application of the Home Office's Iraq Policy Bulletin 2/2006 ("the policy bulletin"), which was introduced after the decisions in R (Rashid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 744 and R (A) (H) and (AH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWHC 526 (Admin).
-
This is an application for permission to appeal on the grounds in the reamended grounds of appeal from the decision of HHJ Behar dated 27 June 2008 dismissing an application to set aside an order dated 9 May 2007 made pursuant to Section 75(7) paragraph (a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and CPR 70.5.
-
A Nigerian citizen with a medical qualification from a Nigerian University applied for leave to remain in the UK as a postgraduate doctor. Following her application, the Immigration Rules changed and no longer extended to foreign applicants with medical qualifications earned outside the UK. The Court decided that the new rule applied to all cases in which leave still had to be granted and not only to doctors who had not yet applied under the new rule.
-
A Somali national arrived in the UK in 2003 when his asylum claim was initially refused. The Appellant subsequently applied for permission to work in the UK which was refused in 2007. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the case was covered by Article 11(2) European Union "Reception Directive". The Court held that the Reception Directive did apply to subsequent applications.
-
The Appellant, an Afghan national, initially sought political asylum in the UK in 2002 which was unsuccessful. He submitted a new application for non-removal in 2005 on grounds of his mental condition. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the basis that the Appellant would be unable to cope with the destitution which he would likely endure if he returned to Aghanistan.
-
The short question raised in these proceedings is whether s.83 applies to a person who has had leave, but only in the past, unrelated to his asylum claim or its rejection.
-
This mother of three children appealed against an order for unsupervised contact by their father to the two youngest children. The mother alleged that she had a fear that the father may abduct the children to Algeria, a country which is not a signatory to any child abduction international treaty. The Court of Appeal decided that the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the district judge failed to hold a full fact-finding hearing and failed to cross-examine the father on the mother’s allegation that he intended to abduct the children. These omissions were held to be contrary to the Practice Direction which was designed to tell judges how to go about deciding issues of residence and contact.
-
Possession proceedings were commenced in 2007 by the Respondent following unresolved complaints against the Appellant. The Court of Appeal held that the Respondent had purported to grant the Appellant a legal estate with the consequence that, in accordance with paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 to Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, the agreement was not effective to grant her a legal tenancy, and operated as a declaration by the Respondent that it held the premises in trust for the Appellant. Consequently, service of notice to quit only on the minor beneficiary of the trust was not sufficient to terminate the tenancy.
-
The circumstances in which claims such as the present will succeed are very rare indeed. The facts must be exceptional. Delay in advancing the case will be fatal. Those who advise claimants should be aware of that before embarking on proceedings, often at public expense.
-
The case of Semere confirmed time limits for the submission of applications for reconsideration in immigration and asylum appeals, extending the deadline from 4pm on the last day for service until the end of that day.
-
The circumstances in which claims such as the present will succeed are very rare indeed. The facts must be exceptional. Delay in advancing the case will be fatal. Those who advise claimants should be aware of that before embarking on proceedings, often at public expense.
-
The issue in this judicial review is whether Islington London Borough Council were entitled to ignore the claimant's adult children, who are subject to immigration control, when considering the allocation of accommodation under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. The case boils down to whether in exercising their powers under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, the Council can refuse to allocate larger accommodation to the claimant. The challenge is by way of judicial review in relation to a decision set out in letters dated early last year, whereby Islington Council decided to exclude the claimant's five adult children in their assessment of what constituted suitable accommodation under their allocation policy.
-
These are proceedings brought by a mother pursuant to section 15 of and Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. The proceedings relate to N, who was born in March 2001. His parents were never married.
