New immigration bail and detention powers introduced 15 January 2018

Significant changes to immigration detention powers and a new status called “immigration bail” come into force on 15 January 2018. The Immigration Act 2016 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017 commence sections 61(1) and (2) and 66 of the Immigration Act 2016 and most of the immigration bail provisions set out in Schedule 10. As the explanatory note explains: Schedule 10 introduces a new framework for immigration bail, replacing a legal framework containing six different legal statuses (including immigration bail and temporary admission) with a single power of immigration bail. The new immigration bail replaces “temporary admission”: any migrant lawfully in the UK without leave will be on immigration bail…

12th December 2017 By Colin Yeo

Immigration judges denounce detention system in Bar Council report

The numbers of people in immigration detention have increased in the last decade. The UK has one of the largest immigration detention systems in Europe. There is no time limit. So opens a Bar Council report on Injustice in Immigration Detention, published today. As a Twitter-length summary of the issue, it is hard to beat. Subtitled “perspectives from legal professionals”, Dr Anna Lindley’s report articulates some of practitioners’ long-standing concerns with detention. These include the competence and behaviour of the Home Office, the treatment of vulnerable detainees and the lack of access to legal remedies. The top line picked up in the Home Office’s own summary of the report is the “numerous injustices”…

30th November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

The Home Office is entitled to ignore a judge’s decision to grant bail

The Court of Appeal has reluctantly agreed that the Home Office has the power to ignore a First-tier Tribunal’s decision to grant bail to an immigration detainee. However, on the particular facts of the case, the decision to refuse consent to bail was deemed unlawful. Despite the impropriety of a departmental civil servant being able to overrule an independent and impartial judge, the Court of Appeal was duty bound to give effect to the clear intention of Parliament. This decision could lead to more regular use of the power to refuse consent by the Home Office, which is deeply concerning. Civil servants overruling judges Lukasz Roszkowski v Secretary of State…

24th November 2017 By Iain Halliday

Aggravated damages for “distressing and traumatic” detention

Last week Suraj Saptoka was awarded £24,515.43 by order of a Deputy High Court judge for false imprisonment in Sapkota v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2857 (Admin). Mr Saptoka had been unlawfully detained for 36 days after immigration officials wrongfully decided he was attempting to extend his leave to remain by entering into a bigamous marriage. Mr Saptoka’s detention Mr Saptoka is a Nepali citizen, who had leave to remain until the end of December 2015. After getting engaged to an EU national, he applied to extend his leave. On 9 November 2015 immigration officers interviewed Mr Saptoka and his fiancée. Mr Saptoka was confronted with…

24th November 2017 By Clare Duffy

Ministers still struggle with meaning of “indefinite” detention

Asked on 21 November about any link between people being kept in indefinite immigration detention and those same people using drugs, Home Office minister Brandon Lewis replied: We don’t have indefinite detention, so… It was an assertion Lewis went on to repeat half a dozen times in the space of a few minutes, having said the same thing in the House of Commons the day before. On that occasion, opposition MP Dan Carden made the obvious riposte: If someone is locked up and not given a timeframe for when they will be released, that is indefinite detention. Only on Planet Home Office is detention for an indefinite period not considered indefinite…

22nd November 2017 By Colin Yeo

The Home Office continues to unlawfully impose curfews

Both R (Jollah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2) [2017] EWHC 2821 (Admin) and R (Lupepe) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 2690 (Admin) were heard on 11, 12 and 13 October 2017 by Mr Justice Lewis. It makes sense to look at them together because they both follow up on R (Gedi) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 409, which challenged the Home Office’s power to impose a curfew on people released from immigration detention. In particular, the Gedi case confirmed that paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which gave power to the Secretary of State to “impose restrictions on residence”, did not extend to a power to impose a curfew over…

22nd November 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Rule 35 torture reports kept from lawyers, government analysis suggests

The legal representatives of immigration detainees who claimed to have been tortured or who may otherwise be unsuitable for detention were not given copies of their medical records, internal Home Office analysis shows. This was contrary to the department’s policy. An audit covering early 2014, but published yesterday, looked at the handling of “Rule 35 reports” written by doctors, mostly when they have concerns about whether a detainee may have been subjected to torture. These records are the main safeguard against detaining victims of torture or other people unsuitable for detention, such as Alois Dvorzac, the 84-year-old Canadian suffering from dementia who died after a Rule 35 report was ignored in 2013. In…

16th November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

Inspection finds improvements at Yarl’s Wood but no clean bill of health

There have been “significant improvements” at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre, according to the latest report by the independent Chief Inspector of Prisons. Peter Clarke nevertheless documents “ongoing concerns” about the infamous facility, which at the last inspection in 2015 was found to be “failing to meet the needs of the most vulnerable women” detained there. These concerns encompass the profile of the women held at the Serco-run centre, some of whom are torture victims, and one of fifth of whom are assessed by the Home Office as being particularly vulnerable. As such, Mr Clarke said that the effectiveness of the Adults at Risk policy was “questionable”. Inspectors also found a…

15th November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

High Court: potential homelessness not a justification for detention

The High Court in R (MS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2797 (Admin) has found that in circumstances where a person would have no option but to stay on the streets after release from detention, the Home Office has a duty under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to provide them with suitable bail accommodation with reasonable speed. Potential homelessness cannot be a reason for prolonged detention. The factual background MS, an alcoholic, had been convicted of various criminal offences in Poland. In November 2015 he came to work in the UK but was “controlled by men who took most of his wages…

15th November 2017 By Paul Erdunast

Home Office pays damages to man detained to protect its own reputation

Abdulrahman Mohammed was last week awarded £78,500 by order of a High Court judge. The career criminal had been detained unlawfully under immigration powers on three occasions by the Home Office for a total period exceeding a year. Unusually, with both parties in agreement that the detention was unlawful, the issue in Mohammed v The Home Office [2017] EWHC 2809 (QB), was quantum: the amount of damages to which a claimant is entitled when wrongly deprived of his liberty by the state. No doubt due to the level of compensation arrived at by the court, the decision has been widely reported in the media. The case is also notable for…

14th November 2017 By Nick Nason

Man in immigration detention for 45 months loses judicial review

Taskiran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2679 (Admin) is a sad case. A web of domestic immigration law and international agreements have resulted in Mr Taskiran undergoing almost four years of immigration detention, which the court found legal. Mr Taskiran was brought to the United Kingdom from Turkey aged 13. In March 1994 his family, including his refugee father, were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. However, Mr Taskiran became addicted to crack cocaine. This seems to have fuelled a long history of offending: between August 1994 and January 2014, he had 27 convictions for 54 offences. In January 2014 he was convicted of rape and sexual…

7th November 2017 By Paul Erdunast

Hostile environment backfiring on the Home Office, Chief Inspector finds

The hostile environment policy is making it more difficult for the Home Office to keep track of foreign national offenders and could even push up crime, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has said. David Bolt’s inspection of the Home Office’s management of non-detained foreign national offenders reports that in line with the idea of a ‘hostile environment’, many FNOs were not receiving any assistance with somewhere to live. As a result, the Home Office did not have a fixed address for some FNOs at the point they were released. The hostile environment is a package of measures, such as limiting access to housing and healthcare, designed to make…

2nd November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

High Court defeat for Home Office over torture policy

The Home Office has lost a judicial review over its controversial change to the definition of torture in a claim brought by unlawfully detained torture victims. The judgment is in the case of Medical Justice & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2461 (Admin). In short, the Home Office changed its definition of “torture” in September 2016 to exclude acts of torture committed by non-state actors. This meant that individuals who had been tortured by a non-state group, such as rebel soldiers, paramilitaries or people traffickers, could in future be detained by the Home Office. The judicial review case was brought by several such individuals who would…

10th October 2017 By Conor James McKinney

BBC Panorama exposes the culture of abuse in immigration detention

Panorama, Undercover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets is required viewing for anyone interested in immigration in the UK. It is also deeply uncomfortable viewing. It documents an undercover investigation into Brook House, one of the UK’s 13 Immigration Removal Centres. The episode shows detainees subjected to severe violence, taunting, and mistreatment. A widespread culture of disdain towards the detainees among staff permeates the detention centre. The investigation sheds light on alarming issues surrounding immigration detention, which have been subject to criticism and legal challenge since the beginning of the proliferation of detention in the UK. This tweet from the Panorama account gives a sense of the programme: WATCH: undercover footage shot by…

6th September 2017 By Thomas Beamont

Systematic abuse found at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre

The latest of what seems a neverending series reports of abuse of detainees in immigration removal centres has come to light. BBC Panorama took undercover footage at Brook House and uncovered the following, amongst other evidence of chaos and incompetence: G4S officers assaulting, abusing and mocking detainees; Asylum seekers being forced to share cells with foreign national prisoners who have completed their sentences. Rife drug use. This is hardly the first time that investigation has uncovered abuse at immigration removal centres. Nor is it the first time that G4S contractors have been involved. G4S has reacted to this by conducting an internal investigation and suspending nine of its staff. G4S could quite easily…

4th September 2017 By Paul Erdunast

£48,000 damages awarded to torture survivor for injuries suffered during deportation attempt

Following a seven-day hearing in the High Court, Mr Felix Wamala, a Ugandan national, was awarded £48,000 in damages for the actions of private security guards contracted by the Home Office in seeking to remove him from the UK. This is the case of Wamala v Tascor Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1461. The judgment is a mammoth one, weighing in at 558 paragraphs plus annexes. Mr Wamala’s claim concerned the use of force, and the threatened use of force, against him by employees of Reliance, now known as Tascor Services Ltd. Tascor is a subsidiary of Capita. As they say on their website: As part of Capita PLC, we have the…

17th July 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Independent Monitoring Board release critical report on charter flight removals

The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) has published its annual review of the treatment of returnees during charter flights. It reported four headline concerns: firstly, that force and restraint had been used without due checks and for too long; secondly, that escorts employed by contractors were in charge of selecting which returnees may speak to the Chief Immigration Officer for advice on their legal rights during the flight, and that on one flight the advice itself was delegated to the escorts; thirdly that returnees were taken to Stansted Airport at night on certain flights; and finally that those who wished to use the toilet either on the coach or the aeroplane…

10th July 2017 By Paul Erdunast

European Court of Human Rights finds vulnerable Zimbabwean national unlawfully detained by Home Office

In a recent decision from Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights has found the UK Home Office unlawfully detained a Zimbabwean national. The Court found that the UK authorities had failed to act with sufficient “due diligence” in progressing the Applicant’s case, leading to him being detained for over two and a half years in an immigration removal centre. The case is S.M.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 77450/12). Background The applicant was born in Zimbabwe. He arrived in the UK in May 2001 and was granted six months’ leave to enter as a visitor. Fast forward to 2007, (a few driving offences and a failed asylum claim…

3rd July 2017 By Rebecca Carr

Zimbabwean national unlawfully detained after Home Office fails to serve immigration decision

Substantial damages of £10,500 have been awarded to a claimant who was unlawfully detained for a period of 70 days. The Home Office had failed to serve the Claimant with notice of a decision on his application to vary his leave to remain in the UK before detaining him, rendering his detention unlawful. The case is R (on the application of) Godwin Chaparadza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1209 (Admin). Background The Claimant, a Zimbabwean national, entered the UK on 5 September 2004 with leave to remain as a student. His leave to remain was extended on a number of occasions, the last such extension…

7th June 2017 By Rebecca Carr

Indefinite detention does not breach ECHR says European Court of Human Rights

Arben Draga v United Kingdom (Application no. 33341/13) Unlike most other European countries, there is no time limit on immigration detention in the UK. In addition, the law does not provide for an automatic judicial review of the lawfulness of detention. Instead, detainees must proactively challenge the lawfulness of their detention. In an admissibility decision of 18 May 2017, the European Court of Human Rights found that this system does not violate the European Convention of Human Rights, an in particular article 5 on the right to liberty. Factual background Arben Draga is a Kosovan national residing in the UK. He was granted refugee status and indefinite leave to remain in December 2001….

30th May 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Another successful unlawful detention claim

R (Ademiluyi) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 935 (Admin) concerns a successful claim for damages by an individual unlawfully detained under immigration powers. It is notable for its restatement of the importance of the third Hardial Singh principle, and as a further example of the Secretary of State’s ‘enduring casualness’ [23] when dealing with cases involving immigration detention. Facts On 26 October 2015, Mr. Ademiluyi’s custodial sentence came to an end. He had served time for immigration-related offences, and in particular possession of a false passport, entering a sham marriage and bigamy. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) had some months previously notified Mr. Ademiluyi that she intended…

9th May 2017 By Nick Nason

Home Office cannot unilaterally modify tribunal bail conditions (updated)

The as yet unreported case of R (on the application of Majera) v Secetary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 163 (IAC) is a thoughtful judgment from the Upper Tribunal gives helpful guidance on the legal status of a First Tier Tribunal bail decision which may have an error on its face. It may be helpful in cases where the Secretary of State appears to ignore the views of the FTT in granting bail and superimpose her own restrictions. The official headnote reads as follows: (1) A defect in framing the primary condition of bail granted by the First-tier Tribunal under paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971…

24th April 2017 By Amanda Weston

Detention of Dublin asylum seekers held to be unlawful

Al Chodor and Others (C-528/15) In a highly significant judgment the CJEU has shown, in effect, that the Home Office has unlawfully detained hundreds or even thousands of individuals seeking international protection. The background facts The Al Chodor family are Iraqi nationals. They travelled to the Czech Republic and were subject to a police check in May 2015. During their police interview, they stated that they had fled Iraq via Turkey to Greece. They had continued their journey and were stopped by police in Hungary, where they made an asylum application. The Czech Foreigners Police Section was of the view that they posed a serious risk of absconding whilst in the…

23rd March 2017 By Thomas Beamont

Serious safety concerns raised in report on Morton Hall IRC

There is supposed to be a fundamental difference between custodial incarceration and immigration detention. The former is reserved for those who have committed crimes: its purpose is punitive, to protect the public and to rehabilitate offenders. The latter, however, is meant to be administrative: a stepping stone for those who are to be removed from the United Kingdom. The majority of those held in immigration detention have committed no crime. Blurred Lines However, a report released yesterday on Morton Hall Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) by the Chief Inspector of Prisons finds that the line between the two regimes is becoming increasingly blurred. According to the report, there has been a…

22nd March 2017 By Nick Nason

New consultation on changes to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014

The Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) is interested to receive your views on changes arising from the Immigration Act 2016, in particular to a number of changes to bail, which the Tribunal Procedure Committee considers may make amendments to the rules relating to bail applications desirable. The Immigration Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”) received Royal Assent on 12 May 2016. It makes significant changes to the substantive law relating to immigration and asylum, including provisions relating to access to services, facilities, licences and work by reference to immigration status. It makes provision for the Director of Labour Market Enforcement; introduces language requirements for public sector workers; amends fees for passports and…

20th February 2017 By Colin Yeo

New report shows detainees in prison denied immigration advice

Hundreds of foreign nationals in the UK are being denied access to immigration advice according to new research from the charity Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID). In their new report, Mind the Gap: Immigration Advice for Detainees in Prisons, BID has found that just 1 in 20 people held under immigration powers in prison have received independent advice on their immigration case. More than 10% of immigration detainees in the UK – some 500 at any one time – are held in prisons rather than Immigration Removal Centres. Source: Detainees in prison denied immigration advice – BID | Bail for Immigration Detainees

15th February 2017 By Colin Yeo

Rules under which over 10,000 fast track asylum appeals decided declared unlawful

The High Court has ruled in the case of R (On the Applications Of TN (Vietnam) & US (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2017] EWHC 59 (Admin) that over 10,000 asylum appeals had been decided under procedure rules so unfair that the determinations could be set aside. Any unsuccessful asylum seekers affected by these rules will now need to apply to the immigration tribunal to have their decision set aside. The critical legal question was whether the Court of Appeal judgment in R (Detention Action) v First-tier and Upper Tribunals (Immigration and Asylum Chambers), Lord Chancellor and SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 840 applied as much…

23rd January 2017 By Colin Yeo

Blocking detainees’ access to legal advice websites probably breaches Article 10 ECHR

Free Movement has reported twice on immigration removal centres (IRCs) blocking access to websites informing detainees of their legal rights. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons criticised Haslar IRC two years ago for having the websites of Bail for Immigration Detainees and Amnesty International blocked. What are "prohibited categories" of websites in IRCs if they include @BIDdetention Medical Justice @freemvmntblog ?? http://t.co/zyrDF5OcG4 — BID (@BIDdetention) March 8, 2013 The All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees’ 2015 report on their inquiry into use of immigration detention slammed the detention centres for blocking access not only to the above websites, but also to the inquiry’s own website. We were told that, in practice, detainees…

13th December 2016 By Paul Erdunast

Challenge to Detained Asylum Casework process fails

The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal the decision by Mr Justice Cranston in the Detained Asylum Casework challenge test case. The latest judgment is R (On the Application Of TH (Bangladesh) & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 815. You can find the newly released policy equality statement on the DAC process here. In short, this means that the general process challenge has failed, but it is still potentially possible for individuals to show unfairness in their particular case.

10th August 2016 By Colin Yeo

Torture, independent evidence, immigration detention and Rule 35

Two cases regarding evidence of torture, decided on different grounds. The uniting feature is some guidance regarding Rule 35 reports of torture by doctors. Where a Rule 35 report of torture is nothing but a restatement of the Appellant’s account, that will not constitute independent evidence – this is in accordance with what the Guidance entitled “Detention Rule 35 Process” states. 75. There was no more than a recitation of the claimant’s account of torture. For reasons I have given (see paras. 30-33 above), that does not amount to independent evidence. The fact that a doctor does not find the account lacking in credibility is not enough. That is what…

12th July 2016 By Paul Erdunast

Latest on legal challenge to detained asylum cases

Very useful update from my colleague Shu Shin Luh: R (Hossain and Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1331 (Admin) Mr Justice Cranston this week handed down judgment in Hossain & others v SSHD, the test case (with four representative claimants) on the lawfulness of the “Detained Asylum Casework” process established by the Detention: Interim Instruction policy (DII) and the Interim Process Map, which was introduced after the Detained Fast Track was suspended on 2 July 2015. The Interim Process Map was unpublished at the time these proceedings were issued and only disclosed in proceedings, and it is understood, remains unpublished. Two of the claimants were…

10th June 2016 By Colin Yeo

Home Office unlawfully imposes curfew on migrant

Gedi, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 409 (17 May 2016) is a case where the Home Office took it into their own hands to impose curfew restrictions over and above bail conditions those imposed by the First Tier Tribunal, as well as those they are entitled to impose as afforded to the Home Office by statute. The Court of Appeal were clear they had no such power to do so.

6th June 2016 By Chris McWatters

High Court strikes down unfair decision in DFT of vulnerable victim of torture

In the first judgment of its kind since the suspension of the Detained Fast Track on 2 July 2015, the High Court struck down the Home Secretary’s refusal and certification of an asylum claim which was made in the structurally unfair and unjust Detained Fast Track (DFT) and ordered the Home Secretary to remake the decision afresh without regard to material obtained in the unfair process. The case is R (on the application of Zafar) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1217 (Admin). The High Court also directed the Home Secretary to pay substantial damages for falsely imprisoning the Claimant, a vulnerable victim of torture, for…

25th May 2016 By Shu Shin Luh

“The Claimant is not a particularly worthy, likeable or sympathetic individual…”

I said during the course of the hearing words to the effect that the Claimant is not a particularly worthy, likeable or sympathetic individual, and that there must be at least a risk that any award of damages would not be put to good use. I do not withdraw those observations. Another way of looking at this case, however, is to point out that the Claimant is vulnerable, that he probably suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and that only those obligated to an adherence to the rule of law would be likely to vindicate his rights. This alternative viewpoint is based not on any subjective preferences but on the loyal discharge…

25th May 2016 By Colin Yeo

When will there be a new Detained Fast Track for asylum seekers?

Not in the foreseeable future, suggests Jerome Phelps of Detention Action over at openDemocracy. The Home Office had proposed new fast track procedure rules but have been politely rebuffed by the Tribunal Procedure Committee: The political pressure on the TPC must have been intense. Ministers have repeatedly made clear the importance they attach to a Fast Track. Few of us doubted that a way would be found for new Rules to restart the Fast Track. Not so. In a courageous display of judicial independence, the TPC has politely declined to create new Fast Track Rules. Without Fast Track Rules, there is no Fast Track appeals process, and no Fast Track. True,…

24th May 2016 By Colin Yeo

Independent Monitoring Board slams Heathrow Immigration Removal Centres

What were Harmondsworth and Colnbrook Detention Centres have been brought under the same management, and are now called Heathrow Immigration Removal Centres. Nonetheless, as the Independent Monitoring Board’s report shows, detention centres by another name still have their same old problems. The Board’s recommendations focus on treatment of vulnerable people, both mentally and physically. The first point noted is that due to lack of facilities and care, the physically disabled are unable to live with respect and dignity in the detention centres. The Board note that matters have not improved since 2014. Given that the Board reported two years ago that access for physically disabled detainees needed to be improved,…

23rd May 2016 By Free Movement

Immigration detainees banned from Twitter and Facebook

A new Detention Services Order 04/2016 about internet access for detainees has just been published. This is the first time the Home Office has set central guidelines on internet access for immigration detainees. The Order makes clear that all detainee internet usage is monitored and centrally recorded. The Order states that detainees should have access to “personal internet based email accounts” and “ready access” to any non-prohibited category of website (see paragraph 8), such as education, legal and news websites, to assist with maintaining links with friends, families and legal representatives and to prepare for removal. DSO 07/2013 sets out more general guidance for staff on welfare provision in IRCs. The prohibited…

17th May 2016 By Colin Yeo

New Home Office instruction on risk assessment for immigration detainees

A new Detention Services Order, DSO 03/2016, has been issued by the Home Office. The name is innocuous — Considering detainee placement — but we can hope that it will have a significant impact because what it really requires is a proper risk assessment before a person is accepted into immigration detention. And about time too. We have in recent years seen some appalling and utterly in humane detention decisions, at least one of which appears directly to have led to the death of a very vulnerable elderly man, Alois Dvorcak. DSO 01/2003 is replaced. This also concerned risk assessment but included no statement that detention might not be suitable;…

9th May 2016 By Colin Yeo

Algerian detained over seven years awarded £3,750 in his latest claim

The High Court has awarded damages of just £3,750 to an Algerian man for a period of five months of unlawful detention. This was just the latest period of immigration detention for Mr Sino, though, who has been detained for a cumulative total of seven years and two months. Mr Justice Hayden had said in an earlier judgment Such a time span is a disturbing period for the executive to detain an individual under purely administrative powers. It would appear to be one of the longest aggregate periods that HM Government has ever detained an individual for in such circumstances. The new judgment, R (on the application of Sino) v…

4th May 2016 By Colin Yeo

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nouazli v SSHD and Lawful Discrimination

As if Michael Gove MP needed further reminding, in wake of Colin Yeo’s appearance on World at One on Wednesday where he pointed out the fundamental error of the Justice Secretary’s assertion that Britain cannot deport EEA nationals with a criminal record, the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Nouazli) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2016] UKSC 16 makes clear that EEA nationals can be deported by virtue of regulation 19 (3) (b) of the EEA Regulations 2006 ‘if the Secretary of State has decided that the person’s removal is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or health…’ However the issue…

25th April 2016 By Chris McWatters