1 2 3 4 5 6 9

Supreme Court rules “deport first, appeal later” is unfair and unlawful

In R (Kiarie and Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 the Supreme Court has struck down “deport first, appeal later” certificates for two foreign criminals. The Home Office had made use of new rules in the Immigration Act 2014 which force some appellants to leave the UK before their appeal takes place, meaning that they are not present to give evidence. Of 1,175 cases in which these powers have so far been used, only 72 individuals attempted to pursue an appeal from abroad. None succeeded. The “deport first, appeal later” rules were originally applied only to foreign criminals facing deportation. However, the Immigration Act…

14th June 2017 By Colin Yeo

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

UK unlawfully denies transfer to UK of refugees living for 18 years in Cyprus British Sovereign Base

R (Bashir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 397 The British Sovereign Base Areas (“SBAs”) are small British-run areas on the Cyprus islands that survived the former colony’s independence. The Home Office has taken the position for a number of years that the Refugee Convention does not apply there. The Court of Appeal has unanimously held that in doing so, then-Home Secretary Theresa May acted unlawfully in denying refugees from the SBAs access to the UK. Background facts The claimants had been rescued from a fishing boat in the Mediterranean in 1998. They had been taken to one of the British Sovereign Base Areas in…

6th June 2017 By Thomas Beamont

When must the tribunal allow appeals against Home Office decisions containing errors of law?

Where the Secretary of State makes an error of law in a decision which is then appealed to the tribunal, does the tribunal have to allow that appeal on the basis that the decision contains an error of law? Not unless the decision as a whole is unlawful, finds the Court of Appeal in Singh (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 362 (24 May 2017). Case outline Mr. Singh’s case was weak. He arrived in 2001 as a visitor for 6 months. He overstayed, and later made two Hail Mary applications in 2010 and 2012 to regularise his stay based on, apparently, little more…

5th June 2017 By Nick Nason

Can a person granted subsidiary protection be transferred under Dublin III?

Case C-36/17: Daher Muse Ahmed v Bundesrepublik Deutschland The EU does not want asylum seekers to ‘shop around’ its Member States. To this end, various Regulations exist to prevent someone who has already claimed asylum in one Member State from subsequently doing so in another. But what if an applicant has claimed before, the result of which was being granted not refugee status, but subsidiary protection (‘humanitarian protection’ in the UK)? The CJEU has replied to a reference from the German administrative court to deliver its answer. Background facts The applicant claimed asylum in Germany. The German authorities found that he had previously claimed asylum in Italy. His application in…

1st June 2017 By Thomas Beamont

UK wrong to deny residence rights for non-EEA family members of dual nationals

The question about what rights are enjoyed by an EU citizen who naturalises as a British citizen becoming a dual citizen is critically important in the context of Brexit. We previously gave some context on why the UK denies dual citizens’ rights under EU law and why many lawyers believe that approach is wrong. This issue was put to the Court of Justice in the case of Lounes C-165/16 has now received a formal Opinion by the Advocate-General suggesting that the UK was wrong to deny EU rights to dual citizens and their family members. Advocate General Opinions The Court of Justice interprets EU law to make sure it is…

31st May 2017 By Chris Desira

Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to rules on Adult Dependent Relatives

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the challenge brought by campaign group Britcits to the restrictive Immigration Rules on the admission to the UK of parents, grandparents and other adult dependent relatives. The case is BRITCITS v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 368. On 9 July 2012, the Immigration Rules on parents, grandparents and other dependent relatives were fundamentally changed, making it virtually impossible for them to be admitted to the UK to join a carer. The main stumbling blocks are these paragraphs from Appendix FM: E-ECDR.2.4. The applicant or, if the applicant and their partner are the sponsor’s parents or grandparents, the applicant’s partner, must…

30th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

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

Country guidance issued between hearing and promulgation will still bind tribunal

Is the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) bound to take into account a Country Guidance (CG) case that is issued by the Upper Tribunal after the date of the FTT hearing, and after the date the FTT judge signs the determination, but before that determination is promulgated? The short answer, in general, and for the very unfortunate appellant in NA (Libya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 143, is yes. Timeline The Libyan appellant in this case had been refused asylum and appealed against the decision to the tribunal. The appeal was heard by the FTT and allowed. The decision was made on the basis of information…

26th May 2017 By Nick Nason

Court of Appeal: “Particularly where children are concerned, there is no such thing as an average case”

By the tone of this judgment, the Court of Appeal in SSHD v RF (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 124 appears to be suffering from deportation fatigue, considering ‘yet another case’ [1] involving a foreign national criminal appealing against a decision to deport. It is testament to the high stakes involved, both politically for the Secretary of State, and individually for the foreign national subjects, that these cases are so regularly reaching the highest courts in the land. Exceptional vs Compelling Under Immigration Rule 398, a foreign criminal who has been sentenced to longer than 4 years imprisonment must show ‘exceptional circumstances’ if he or she is to outweigh the public interest in deportation….

25th May 2017 By Nick Nason

UK law found to be more generous than EU law for jobseekers acquiring permanent residence

The case of GE v. SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 145 (ACC) sets out how the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (since replaced with the 2016 version), are in some areas, more generous than EU law itself by concluding that an initial right of residence or status as a job-seeker could count towards permanent residence for an EEA national. Background The case is a decision of the Upper Tribunal relating to the entitlement of an EEA benefit claimant to Employment Support Allowance (ESA). The facts of the case will not be of significance in the immigration field, except to note that it was important to establish the EEA nationals statuses…

22nd May 2017 By Chris Desira

No human rights issues to be raised in EEA appeals, confirms Court of Appeal

In September 2015, the Upper Tribunal decided the case of Amirteymour and others (EEA appeals; human rights) [2015] UKUT 466 (IAC). The decision states that if an appeal is brought in the First-Tier Tribunal against an EEA decision then the only relevant issues that can be raised during the appeal are those directly connected to that EEA decision. Human rights issues, the Upper Tribunal ruled, were not justiciable. This case was covered at the time by Free Movement, where several issues were raised in respect of the reasoning of the tribunal, and the policy of attempting to artificially distinguish between European law rights and other rights guaranteed under domestic human rights…

19th May 2017 By Nick Nason

Coruscating criticism by President of Home Office behaviour in refugee family reunion case

To summarise, figuratively the Secretary of State does not have a leg upon which to stand either factually or legally. These were the words used by Mr Justice McCloskey, president of the Upper Tribunal, in the judicial review case of Mohamed Al-Anizy. Needless saying, he was not very impressed by the Secretary of State´s behaviour, in this case in relation to her application (or, rather, non-application) of its guidance on family reunion for refugees. Background of the case The Applicant, Mr Al-Anizy, is a husband and father of four children, aged between 3 and 10 years old. The family are Kuwaiti Bidoons. The Kuwaiti authorities issued a warrant of arrest…

19th May 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Capparrelli (EEA Nationals – British Nationality) [2017] UKUT 162 (IAC) -Comment by Ian Macdonald QC

Ian Macdonald QC has sent in an interesting note on the controversial Capparrelli determination. For background, see original Free Movement write up here: Tribunal finds Home Office has wrongly issued British passports to EU citizens and their children. Section 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (the “1981 Act”), the subject matter whereof is “Acquisition by birth or adoption”, provides: “(1) A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement, or in a qualifying territory on or after the appointed day, shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is— … (b) settled in the United Kingdom or that territory.” Section 1 came…

18th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal gives guidance on general principles in deprivation of citizenship appeals

Interesting case on deprivation of citizenship, not least as the Home Office spectacularly messed up by refusing on an unjustifiable grounds when there was a justifiable one staring them in the face. Official headnote: (i) The Secretary of State has two separate powers of deprivation, exercisable on different grounds, as set out in sub-ss (2) and (3) of s 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. (ii) The power under s 40(2) arises only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. (iii) The power under sub-s (3) arises only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that registration or naturalisation was obtained…

17th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

New CJEU case extends Zambrano rights of residence, emphasises best interests of children

In a new case, Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Netherlands C-133/15, the Court of Justice of the European Union has significantly extended Zambrano rights beyond those so far recognised by the Home Office and UK courts. The case offers far better guidance than was available in previous cases and emphasises that the impact on children is a primary consideration. Background The case involved seven mothers who had applied to the Dutch authorities for residence on the basis of being the primary carers of young Dutch children. They had all been refused residency because it was said that the fathers of the children could care for them, and therefore the children would not…

16th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal says foreign law is a question of fact normally determined by expert evidence

The Home Office proposed to remove the father of a family and three children to India and the wife and mother to Pakistan, thus separating the family. The family argued that they would be permanently separated because the immigration laws of India would not allow entry for the mother. The Home Office argued to the contrary, but the evidence on which the Home Office arguments was based was found to be, um, a bit flawed: It follows that the cornerstone of the Secretary of State’s case crumbles and collapses. The main pillar upon which the Secretary of State has sought to justify the impugned removal decisions has been shown to be devoid…

15th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Family life succeeds in defeating s.94B ‘deport first, appeal later’ certification

The judgment in OO (Nigeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 338 is one of a series of cases challenging the lawfulness of the certification regime under s.94B Nationality Immigration Asylum Act 2002 (as amended). The issue has been considered several times on Free Movement, and judgment is still awaited on the lead test case of Kiarie and Byndloss v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1020, heard by the Supreme Court in March. This case is notable for its treatment of family life issues in respect of a (potentially) temporary absence from the United Kingdom whilst an appeal is ongoing, and a…

15th May 2017 By Nick Nason

Home Office unlawfully relies on Albania guidance for five years

LC (Albania)  v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 340 The Home Office has relied on outdated guidance to determine asylum applications from Albanian nationals, the Court of Appeal has held. The judgment in LC (Albania) will have far-reaching effects for those people denied protection under bad law over a number of years. The judgment also reiterates the approach to be taken when considering the future behaviour of asylum applicants if they return to their home country. Asylum claims based on sexuality Guidance for determining asylum applications on sexuality identity grounds was articulated in HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31 (“HJ (Iran)”)….

12th May 2017 By Thomas Beamont

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 application to delay Calais Jungle child asylum case refused by tribunal

In an oral decision in the case of R (on the application of AO & AM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (stay of proceedings – principles) [2017] UKUT 168 (IAC) given on 28 March 2017, the Upper Tribunal refused the Secretary of State’s application to stay the Judicial Review proceedings of AO and AM, two unaccompanied minors previously in the Calais Jungle, and who had been refused their transfer to the UK under the expedited Dublin III process. In the decision Mr Justice McCloskey, President of the Upper Tribunal, offers very useful and interesting guidance on the principles to be followed in applications to stay proceedings pending…

3rd May 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Strasbourg rules on state obligations towards trafficked persons

Chowdury and Others v Greece (Application number 21884/15 – the judgment is only available in French. An English-language press summary is available.) The European Court of Human Rights has found that strawberry-pickers in Greece were subjected to forced labour. The Court found that the authorities failed to prevent forced labour and protect the migrant workers. The case raises novel points about the scope of the right not to be subjected to forced labour, and the state’s obligations to investigate potential instances of forced labour and trafficking. The facts The applicants in this case are 42 Bangladeshi men who worked on a strawberry farm in Nea Manolada, Greece from 2012-2013. They…

2nd May 2017 By Thomas Beamont

Tribunal gives guidance on revocation of deportation orders after 10 years

Official headnote: (i) In cases involving convictions for an offence for which the person was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of less than 4 years, the Secretary of State’s policy, as expressed in paragraph 391(a) of the Immigration Rules, is that the public interest does not require continuation of a deportation order after a period of ten years has elapsed. (ii) However, paragraph 391(a) allows the Secretary of State to consider on a case by case basis whether a deportation order should be maintained. The mere fact of past convictions is unlikely to be sufficient to maintain an order if the ‘prescribed period’ has elapsed. Strong public policy reasons…

28th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Calling evidence “self serving” not sufficient reason for disregarding it

Official headnote: (1) The expression “self-serving” is, to a large extent, a protean one. The expression itself tells us little or nothing. What is needed is a reason, however brief, for that designation. For example, a letter written by a third party to an applicant for international protection may be “self-serving” because it bears the hallmarks of being written to order, in circumstances where the applicant’s case is that the letter was a spontaneous warning. (2) Whilst a statement from a family member is capable of lending weight to a claim, the issue will be whether, looked at in the round, it does so in the particular case in question….

26th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Ankara Agreement standstill clause does not apply to settlement applications says tribunal

Official headnote: (I) The settlement of migrant Turkish nationals and their family members does not fall within the scope of the “stand-still clause” in Article 41(1) of the Ankara Agreement (ECAA) Additional Protocol as it is not necessary for the exercise of freedom of establishment under Article 13. Thus the status of settlement in the UK for such Turkish nationals and their family members cannot derive in any way from the ECAA or its Additional Protocol; (II) Where a Turkish national who exercised rights under the ECAA has been granted settlement in the UK the rights of such person and his family members are not derived from the ECAA or its Additional…

24th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

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

New case on children seeking entry under the Dublin Regulation

Official headnote: (I) The question of whether the Secretary of State has made a decision on the exercise of the discretionary power in Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation is one of fact which will be determined on the basis of evidence, direct or inferential. (II) Article 17 is an integral part of the Dublin regime. The suggestion that the Article 17 discretion falls to be exercised only where the family reunification criteria in Article 8 are not satisfied is misconceived. (III) Article 17 has a role in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures and systems…

21st April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal decides Supreme Court ruling in Hesham Ali is already redundant

Well, that did not take long. The Court of Appeal has in the case of NE-A (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 239 decided that the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Hesham Ali [2016] UKSC 60 is confined to cases in which the Immigration Rules are applied and does not apply to cases decided under the statutory human rights considerations introduced by the Immigration Act 2014. As background, in 2012 the Government introduced new Immigration Rules which in effect set a series of strict quasi-statutory tests to be applied in immigration cases in which human rights were pleaded. The intended effect was to reduce the…

18th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal gives guidance on meaning of ‘unlawful residence’

The case of Akinyemi v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 236 concerns the deportation of a man born and raised in the United Kingdom, a country he has never left. It provides valuable guidance on the meaning of the word ‘unlawful’ within the context of deportation provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 and shows just how far the law has moved in this area. Facts Remi Akinyemi is a man for whom one struggles to feel any great sympathy. Over the course of a prolific criminal career he accumulated 20 convictions and was found guilty of, amongst other offences, causing death by dangerous driving, possession of heroin with intent to supply, and…

11th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Deport first, appeal later certificates, judicial reviews and fresh claims considered by Upper Tribunal

In the judicial review case of Ayache, R (on the application of) v SSHD (paragraph 353 and s94B relationship) [2017] UKUT 122 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considers the lawfulness of a decision to certify a human rights claim under s.94B Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. For those not already aware, s.94B gives effect to the government’s “Deport First, Appeal Later” policy, which was upheld as lawful by the Court of Appeal in Kiarie and Byndloss v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1020. The test case was, however, subject to an onward to appeal which was heard by the Supreme Court last month. Judgment is awaited. Brief Facts The Applicant in the…

4th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Upper Tribunal dismisses appeal against deprivation of citizenship of Rotherham sex gang

The facts behind the case are notorious; the law elucidated is notable. See the background legal discussion on the history of citizenship laws, the process behind deprivation, the relevance of the best interests of affected children and the relevance (or rather lack of it) of EU law at paragraphs 26 to and the official headnote: (i) While the two fold duties enshrined in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 are imposed on the Secretary of State, the onus of making representations and providing relevant evidence relating to a child’s best interests rests on the appropriate parental figure. (ii) A failure to discharge this onus may well…

3rd April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal reaffirms position on adult dependent relatives

In Butt v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 184 the Court of Appeal considers the weight to be given to the relationship between parents and their adult dependent children in the Article 8 balancing exercise. It is notable – and this was the principle reason it managed to reach the Court of Appeal – because of the original decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) to make separate findings in relation to parents and those adult dependent children: allowing the appeals of the latter, while rejecting the former. The facts The Butt family arrived in the UK on 7 July 2004. They had been granted visit visas for a 6 month stay but did…

30th March 2017 By Nick Nason

When is it reasonable to require British citizen children to leave Britain?

Two interesting and important legal points emerge from the Upper Tribunal’s determination in SF and others (Guidance, post-2014 Act) [2017] UKUT 120 (IAC). The first is on the issue of when, if at all, a British child might be required by immigration policy to leave the UK and the second is how far, if at all, the tribunal might take account of policies of the Secretary of State under the new appeals regime established by the Immigration Act 2014. Reasonableness of requiring a British child to leave UK It turns out that the Secretary of State’s policy is that it is never reasonable to require a British citizen child to…

29th March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Upper Tribunal wrong all along on Kareem and proxy marriages of EU citizens

The Court of Appeal has held that the Upper Tribunal has been wrong all along about proxy marriages and EU law. The case is Awuku v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 178 and it overrules the earlier tribunal cases of Kareem (Proxy Marriages – EU Law) Nigeria [2014] UKUT 24 and TA and Others (Kareem explained) Ghana [2014] UKUT 316. It is always a bad sign when a judgment subsequently has to be “explained”. And so it was here. The Home Office had already conceded that the approach of the Upper Tribunal was wrong and the Court of Appeal had to resort to appointing an Advocate…

23rd March 2017 By Colin Yeo

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

K2: right to a private and family life no bar to deprivation of citizenship

K2 v the United Kingdom (Application No 42387/13) The use of the Home Secretary’s power to strip a British citizen of their citizenship is on the rise. It has been the subject of debate where its use has rendered a person stateless following a series cases in the higher courts (see, for instance, here and here). But what arguments can be used to prevent the deprivation of citizenship where the person remains a citizen of a foreign country? In K2, the attempt focused on the applicant’s right to a private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The complaint was declared inadmissible, in a judgment in…

20th March 2017 By Thomas Beamont

Scarring evidence in asylum cases

“The Tribunal’s conclusion was… that [in order to fabricate an asylum claim] the appellant had allowed himself to be anaesthetised and then branded with a hot metal rod”  – Elias LJ, KV (Sri Lanka) In this area of law, it is sometimes hard to live with the reality of what human beings can do to one another. It is trite to say that the white heat of a traumatic experience can be lost in the cold sterility of judicial evaluation. But it bears repeating that judges who specialise in immigration and asylum law are human beings, too. They have the capacity to become inured to the sea of trauma and…

15th March 2017 By Nick Nason

Student accused of ETS fraud found to have been unlawfully detained

In R (on the application of Iqbal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 79 (Admin) the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) was found to have unlawfully detained a claimant whom they had alleged had fraudulently obtained an Educational Test Service (ETS) certificate to show that he spoke English to the level required for his immigration application. The Home Office decided to remove him under s.10 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. However both these decisions were made whilst the claimant was temporarily out of the country. Nonetheless, the SSHD proceeded to detain him 2 weeks later on his return to Heathrow on the basis that they…

15th March 2017 By Chris McWatters

The UK’s spousal and family visa regime: some reflections after the Supreme Court judgment in the MM case | University of Bristol Law School Blog

Very interesting and detailed reflections on the MM case in the Supreme Court on the spouse minimum income rule. Family and spousal migration is only one part of migration policy, and there is the broader issue of what values migration policy should serve generally. In recent political argument in the UK, three sets of voices have been prominent, virtually to the exclusion of all others. First, the proverbial “taxpayer”, the net contributor to government spending. Second, the needs of “business” for skilled and not-so-skilled workers. Third, the “legitimate concerns” of so-called “ordinary people”, constructed as the “white working-class” worried about cultural and demographic change. Largely absent from the discussion have…

13th March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Ukrainian prison conditions breach Article 3 but draft evaders can still be sent back says Upper Tribunal

Official headnote: 1. At the current time it is not reasonably likely that a draft-evader avoiding conscription or mobilisation in Ukraine would face criminal or administrative proceedings for that act, although if a draft-evader did face prosecution proceedings the Criminal Code of Ukraine does provide, in Articles 335, 336 and 409, for a prison sentence for such an offence. It would be a matter for any Tribunal to consider, in the light of developing evidence, whether there were aggravating matters which might lead to imposition of an immediate custodial sentence, rather than a suspended sentence or the matter proceeding as an administrative offence and a fine being sought by a…

9th March 2017 By Colin Yeo
1 2 3 4 5 6 9