Archives For Human rights

Cases arriving on luggage carousel

The luggage carousel of the tribunal’s reporting committee has spewed forth a fresh batch of cases. Two of them concern deportation, one under domestic primary legislation and the other under European Union law. The facts are very different but the cases illustrate well the stark differences between domestic and EU law on deportation. Continue Reading…

Pound Coins by William Warby
[Scroll to bottom for updates]

The judgment is now out in the long awaited case of MM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 985, the test case challenging the minimum income threshold for spouses wishing to enter the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal has allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal. This is terrible, heartbreaking news for those families forced apart by the rule. An appeal to the Supreme Court will be attempted, but it will be many months until any outcome is known.

For previous coverage here on Free Movement, including the previous judgment, see here.

What follows is just an initial reaction on reading the judgment. I will update if anything further occurs to me.

Continue Reading…

Update on Haleemudeen vs Edgehill

Free Movement write up and prediction here.

And an update from Paul Richardson, Counsel for Mr Haleemudeen: Continue Reading…

Molly Malone

Judgment has finally been handed down in the latest test case on Dublin removals to Italy, Tabrizagh and others v SSHD [2014] EWHC 1914 (Admin) and although it is on any view bad news, there is much in it to consider. In a carefully reasoned and frankly impressive decision the newly made up Laing J dismissed the claimants’ challenge on the facts. This is the first Dublin case to consider the principles in the Supreme Court’s ground-breaking EM (Eritrea) v SSHD [2014] UKSC 12. Continue Reading…

limbodanceparty

There can be few immigration practitioners who do not presently encounter decisions in relation to applications made on the basis of peoples’ private and family life which do not carry the right of appeal. In recent years the prevailing tendency has become to segregate decisions, where the applicant is an overstayer or illegal entrant, such that refusals to vary leave to remain are made without further steps to enforce removal, leaving migrants without an appealable immigration decision which would gain them access to a merits appeal in the First-tier Tribunal (because overstayers do not enjoy the right of appeal given section 82(2)(d) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and absent any duty to make speedy removal directions when refusing applications, see Daley-Murdock [2011] EWCA Civ 161). Numerous considerations arise in these cases as to the remedies available and their scope. Continue Reading…

Picture of pills

A child referred to in court only as “Maya” is six years old. She has Spina Bifida and is very severely disabled. She also has severe learning difficulties and extremely complex needs. For the last five years she has received highly specialised medical treatment and has attended a special school in Enfield which provides her with a very high level of support. The situation of Maya and her family is a hard one.

It is a situation made all the harder by the twin facts that Maya is Algerian and that the Home Office want to send Maya back there. Continue Reading…

Royal Courts of Justice

UPDATE:

The facts of Haleemudeen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 558 reveal another of those “undesirable” migrants the Home Office is so keen to remove:

Mr Haleemudeen is the Assistant Manager of a Tesco Express store in Whitechapel. His wife is a part-time student and hopes to become a nursery school teacher. The couple have made many good friends in this country and Mr Haleemudeen undertakes charity work for the Sri Lankan Muslim community of east London. One of the children has been here since she was 21 months old and the other was born in this country. They are settled in school and have friends. The eldest daughter, who is being treated for asthma, is doing well at school.

On top of that, Mr Haleemudeen’s wife was accepted to be “an asset to her community” and it was accepted that all the children had ever known was their life with their parents in the United Kingdom and that neither child spoke good Tamil. Continue Reading…

Court of Appeal grants permission on Article 3 and 8 health cases

Important grant of permission from the Court of Appeal in six linked cases addressing issues arising from D and N cases at Strasbourg and subsequent treatment by the UK courts. For some legal background see this earlier blog post. In granting permission Maurice Kay LJ says:

I have indicated that I propose to grant permission to appeal in this case. I do so for a number of reasons. The first is that I accept the submissions on behalf of the applicants that there are arguable issues as to the precise scope of D and N, given the factual circumstances in which those decisions were made. They concern effectively illegal entrants who can properly be described as “health tourists”. None of these six applicants falls into that category, although BA has never enjoyed lawful status in this country.

The second point is that not only are there features in the cases such as lawful residence prior to diagnosis and treatment, or long and mainly lawful residence, there is room for clarification of the criterion of exceptionality which derives from D and N. For example, virtually certain death within two weeks on return following a period of lawful and sometimes lengthy residence in this country may be susceptible to accommodation within exceptionality. It may be that Lady Hale’s judgment in N permits such an approach. In any event it seems to me that there is room for a decision providing clarification.

My colleague Rebecca Chapman is acting for one of the appellants and Duran Seddon for another.

Shahzad (Art 8: legitimate aim) Pakistan [2014] UKUT 85 (IAC)

Like a bad itch that it can’t help but scratch, the tribunal returns again to the subject of Article 8 and ‘the proper approach’. Regretfully the distasteful, injudicious and simply impolite phrase “a run of the mill case” is again deployed, albeit this time in the context of a student rather than a pensioner and his wife. The Home Office appeal succeeds against an allowed First-tier Tribunal determination. Headnote as follows: Continue Reading…