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

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

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