Garden Court Chambers Website

Garden Court Chambers
www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk / info@gardencourtchambers.co.uk


Garden Court Chambers Logo







Home » bulletins » Immigration Law Bulletin » Immigration Law Bulletin - Issue 187 - 7 July 2010

Immigration Law Bulletin - Issue 187 - 7 July 2010
(Published on Wednesday, 7 July, 2010)


News

The world's largest and finest refugee advocacy project, Refugee and Migrant Justice, closed, leaving over 10,000 clients without legal representation and hundreds of dedicated staff redundant. They will be greatly missed by Garden Court.
Click here to read more.

Cases

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina (Anastasia) & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 719 (23 June 2010)
Sedley LJ in the Court of Appeal ruled that it was unlawful for a discrete element of the rules to be placed beyond Parliament's scrutiny and left to the unfettered judgment of the rule-maker: thus the guidance that accompanied the Points Based System was not a mandatory requirement of a successful application and, for example, the three-month criterion (on the holding of funds) formed no part of the rules applicable. The immigration rules had to be satisfied at the date of the application not at the date of the appeal hearing in PBS cases. In exercising her powers with regards to PBS cases, whether within or outside the rules of practice for the time being in force, the Home Secretary must have regard and give effect to applicants' Convention rights. This will mean in most cases evaluating the extent and quality of their family and private life in the United Kingdom and the implications, both for them and for the United Kingdom, of truncating their careers here.
Click here for the full judgment.

HM (Malawi) (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1407 (Admin) (24 June 2010)
Collins J in the Administrative Court found that while convictions occurring before the grant of the previous leave to remain can be taken into account as relevant to the deportation question, a recommendation for deportation that did not accord with the relevant test should not be treated as one to which weight would attach. In the context of Article 8, the test of the effect on family life includes asking whether it would be unreasonable for the spouse to decline to follow the deportee to the other country, that being a judgement to be made by looking at all matters relevant to such a decision. The effect on the health of the deportee and spouse would be a potentially critical matter, and the medical condition of each, and the availability of, and accessibility to, medical and pharmaceutical treatment to alleviate or treat any diseases or disorders must be relevant to that issue.
Click here for the full judgment.

R v Kluxen [2010] EWCA Crim 1081
In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) it was said that the Naseri tests (in favour of a recommendation for deportation) will rarely be satisfied in the case of an offender none of whose offences merits a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.
Click here for the full judgment.

FA Iraq
The Court of Appeal found that the unmodified CPR 52.3(6) ("real prospect of success" or "some other compelling reason") continues to apply in all the following types of case: where a hearing has taken place as a reconsideration and the determination is dated before 15 February 2010, but is promulgated after that date; where a hearing has taken place as a reconsideration before 15 February 2010 and the determination is dated and promulgated after that date; where there was a first stage reconsideration before 15 February 2010, but the second stage reconsideration was heard after that date; where a reconsideration was ordered before 15 February 2010 and then heard as an appeal to the Upper Tribunal by virtue of the transitional provisions after that date.
Click here to read more.

Merriman-Johnson (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1598 (Admin)
Mr Ockelton in the Administrative Court opined that if the Secretary of State had wrongly concluded that a person did not have a right of appeal, the appropriate course of action would be to exercise the existing right of appeal by appeal to the Tribunal rather than by challenging the Secretary of State's decision on something on which the Secretary of State had no power to make a decision.

Ustun (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1517 (Admin)
Treacy J in the Administrative Court noted that the provisions of paragraph 4 of HC 510, relevant to Turkish Association Agreement standstill cases, state "However a negative history, including unlawful presence in the UK, cannot in itself be conclusive in refusing an application".

Training

20 July 2010
HJT Training presents their revision course covering all material subject areas for the re-accreditation exams: Immigration, European Union EEA, Humanitarian Human Rights and Asylum, in the context of worked examples.
For full details, click here.

Judicial Review Conference
14 October 2010, Birmingham

A leading team from Garden Court Chambers will give an up-to-date overview of all aspects of judicial review together with practical advice on how to apply the law successfully.
For full details, click here.

 

GARDEN COURT CHAMBERS, 57- 60 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3LJ
Telephone: 020 7993 7600, Fax 020 7993 7700 | info@gclaw.co.uk
BS EN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED
The Garden Court Chambers Website conforms to W3C's "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", level A.

Garden Court Chambers, 57- 60 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3LJ
Telephone: 020 7993 7600 / Fax 020 7993 7700 / Email: info@gclaw.co.uk

© 2014 Garden Court Chambers