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

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