Immigration Solicitors

The recent Duncan Lewis judicial review case of Ibrahimi & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2049 (Admin) led by the Instructing Solicitors Krisha Prathepan and Bahar Ata saw the High Court determine that a Member State of the European Union is not complying with its obligations under the Common European Asylum System and the return of asylum seekers to Hungary will result in significant breaches of protected human rights.

It is expected that the judgment will have extensive implications for the assessment of returns to Hungary not only from the United Kingdom but also from elsewhere within the European Union. Consequential applications are due to be heard in October 2016.

The judge’s primary finding was that as at the date of his judgment, and having carefully considered all the relevant evidence, that there is a significant risk that the Claimants would be at risk of refoulement if removed to Hungary. However, even at the time when the original decisions were taken, the decisions were legally flawed because it ought to have been clear to the Secretary of State that there were serious problems arising out of the recent changes to the Hungarian law, such that removal of the Claimants from this jurisdiction may not have been justified. No detailed analysis as to whether removal was justified was ever undertaken by the Secretary of State.

Krisha Prathepan stated: “We hope that this judgment puts into context why so many desperate people move through countries like Hungary to get to safety.”

Bahar Ata stated: “This is a landmark judgement recognising the risks to vulnerable individuals of being returned to Hungary without ever having their protection claims properly considered”.

The judge has added a number of caveats to his decision that the Claimants would be at risk of refoulement. He has been careful to emphasise that the decision he has reached in is based on the evidence before him and that the further, relevant evidence may change future assessment (for better or for worse).

For example, since argument was heard but before the date of the judgment, there was a failed coup in Turkey, and the consequences of that may well be highly relevant. He also noted that the factual position was very fluid, and that it may well be possible for the Secretary of State to obtain specific assurances from the various States as to the treatment which individuals might receive.

About Krisha Prathepan and Bahar Ata

Public Law solicitors Krisha Prathepan and Bahar Ata are both specialists in immigration judicial review claimant matters.

Duncan Lewis' public law team specialises in all immigration claimant judicial review matters and costs litigation; unlawful immigration detention cases with high net claims for damages; prison law claimant; immigration removal cases. Challenges involving community care issues and the provision of social welfare services. The Duncan Lewis Public Law department is recommended by Legal 500 2015 for its depth of experience in immigration and civil liberties challenges and is acknowledged as having a "stellar reputation in handling test cases". The Public law team is well established and known by the Legal Aid Agency, the Courts, and the Treasury Solicitor. Duncan Lewis have experience in all aspects of judicial review claimant work, including obtaining emergency orders and other interim relief to prevent breaches of human rights, following up judicial reviews with actions for damages in both the County and High Court and successfully pursuing judicial review matters to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Duncan Lewis carry out both publicly and privately funded work.