Permission to work judgment

By On 20 November 2009 · 10 Comments · In Cases

I’ve just seen that judgment is now available on BAILII* in a recent successful challenge to UKBA’s refusal to grant permission to work to those who are entitled to it following the Court of Appeal judgment in ZO (Somalia).

More about the issue in previous posts starting here. It is a classic example of UKBA lawlessness. Incidentally, Steve Symonds of ILPA will be giving a talk on UKBA lawlessness at the ILPA AGM tomorrow, for which it is apparently not too late for members to book. I’ll be there!

* Enough of you are clicking on BAILII links to have induced the head honcho at BAILII recently to email me so say they were delighted that I made such free use of BAILII links but please acknowledge BAILII more – which I am absolutely delighted to do, BAILII is a marvellous website.

 
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it
Reddit Facebook Twitter Delicious Mixx StumbleUpon Digg

10 Responses to Permission to work judgment

  1. Nearly Legal says:
    20 November 2009 at 9:05 pm

    On the Bailii links – how odd. We at NL link to Bailii massively, but I’ve never had an email from the head honcho or anyone else. Granted we do acknowledge Bailii quite often, but not on every link, or on the admin/court of appeal recent decision feeds.

    Having read this, though, I’ll review how we mention Bailii. They most certainly deserve the credit for their marvellous resource.

    • freemovement says:
      21 November 2009 at 4:37 pm

      They are fantastic, and the search facility works wonderfully quickly. I just added up the clicks-throughs from Free Movement to BAILII from yesterday and to my considerable surprise there were 215 click-throughs to various different cases. I guess that is enough to show up on their own incoming stats.

      Hope you are all well over at Nearly Legal!

  2. Technomist says:
    22 November 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Nice to see you on such good form at ILPA.

    http://archipelago-of-truth.blog.co.uk/2009/11/22/some-thoughts-about-murder-domestic-violence-forced-marriages-and-immigration-policy-7435523/

  3. marambadoro says:
    23 November 2009 at 12:48 pm

    Could you comment on reports that there are inconsistencies within the judiciary as far as judicial review cases on this issue (ZO judgement) are concerned. Sathakaran v SSHD is obviously a positive outcome for asylum seekers in the same position as ZO and others. Also I have to say when I read Sathakaran I was absolutely convinced that the home office has no basis whatsoever for applying for stay of consideration in this matter. However, there have been reports that other judgements on this issue have refused permission to work but instead allowed stay of consideration until the supreme court decides on ZO. If that is the case then is it possible that the lawlessness on the home office’s part is a contagious disease that is now affecting the judiciary as well. Hope not because this will be a disaster in terms of the credibility of the judiciary in this country.

    • freemovement says:
      24 November 2009 at 1:11 pm

      There are reports of inconsistencies, but the reported judgment should help iron those out.

  4. Nearly Legal says:
    24 November 2009 at 12:03 am

    215 per day! Blimey. We do about 40-50 per day unless it is a big case. no wonder we haven’t had an email. I wonder what this says about immigration v housing types ;-)

    We are fine, thanks, although work v blogging is becoming more and more of an issue, as you know well. There are only so many case reports one can knock out in the week…

    • freemovement says:
      24 November 2009 at 1:10 pm

      Work v blogging, absolutely. It is still a great way to force oneself to stay up to date. I struggle to post up good analysis when I’m particularly busy because it is so time consuming, and I generally try to avoid fillers, which does lead to longish intervals sometimes.

      Immigration v housing, I think it probably just means that there are more immigration cases out there from the higher courts because of the silly immigration appeals regime that currently exists (direct appeal from IJ Bloggs to LJ One-Of-Finest-Legal-Minds-In-The-Country). Immigration lawyers are always desperately hungry for more information and updates. I think quite a few non-lawyers also come to this site, which was always one of the intentions behind it. Email subscriptions have really taken off and now exceed 230. Many subscribers do not have legal company addresses, and while some of those may be personal addresses I suspect quite a few are interested members of the public.

  5. chinyarinda says:
    28 November 2009 at 1:11 am

    There are more and more decisions being made by the judicial system against the SSHD thanks to the lack of respect of the rule of law on its part and politically driven draconian immigration policies.