Updates, commentary and advice on immigration and asylum law
New citizenship deprivation course available now
No notice removals case

No notice removals case

R (on the application of Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1925 (Admin) should be a wake up call to civil servants at UKBA and Ministers in the new Government. The High Court declared unlawful the Home Office policy of conducting no notice removals. The judgment lacks the pithy and stirring qualities of the best judgments of the higher courts (this is a first instance judgment, after all, and the issues had not yet been narrowed), but it clearly sets out the principles of the right of access to justice in a democratic society.

Sadly, rather than heed this call, the Home Office has chosen to appeal. The Coalition Government’s record may be better than the last Government – but that isn’t exactly saying much!

The evidence of the excellent Steve Bravery, Sheona York, Jo Swaney and Sonal Ghelani was accepted, which was that it is impossible to give legal assistance to a person inside a 72 hour period, never mind once they are in a van on the way to the airport. Mr Justice Silber holds that this is a breach of the right of access to the courts, itself a fundamental component of the rule of law. Interestingly, the judgment explicitly reserves judgment on whether even 72 hours is sufficient notice to comply with the right of access to the courts.

See here for previous related posts.

Free Movement

The Free Movement blog was founded in 2007 by Colin Yeo, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers specialising in immigration law. The blog provides updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law by a variety of authors.

Not yet a member of Free Movement?

Sign up for as little as £20 plus VAT per month

Join Now

Benefits Include

  • Unlimited access to all articles
  • Access to our forums
  • E-books for free
  • Access to all online training materials
  • Downloadable training certificates
Shares