In The Press

Duncan Lewis has been instructed by 4 of the 5 appellants in a test case challenging the provisions of the Dublin III regulations. In this landmark case, the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of the appellants, finding that the Secretary of State for the Home Department may have been unlawfully detaining hundreds of asylum-seekers in UK immigration removal centres (IRCs) in recent years. The Guardian, Independent and Scottish Legal News have all written of the case, which concerns the way Articles 28 and 2(n) of Dublin III regulations have been interpreted. Under the regulations, any asylum-seeker who seeks international protection in the UK after passing through a safe country may be removed to that country to process their claim there. Whilst the removal is put in place, many have been held in detention in IRCs across the UK. The court has ruled that by definition, those having their claims considered under the Dublin III regulations should only be detained in IRCs if they are at serious risk of absconding. Significantly, the 5 appellants did not meet this requirement when they were held in detention. It is thought that there are many more who may have been affected by this practice and be eligible for damages. Bahar Ata and Krisha Prathepan, of Duncan Lewis Public Law department, acted on behalf of 4 appellants in this case. Bahar states: “[This is] yet another example of [the Home Office]…unlawfully detaining asylum seekers, without proper consideration of their claims”. Krisha anticipates that “[t]his landmark judgment [will have] huge implications for those who were detained under the provision in the Dublin regulation [Dublin III]…It is deeply concerning that the Home Office’s unlawful conduct may have led to the detention of so many people without any lawful basis. In effect, the Home Office has unlawfully detained hundreds or even thousands of individuals seeking international protection.”