News

Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese opposition politician and former General Secretary of National League of Democracy should never have been imprisoned for fifteen years in the first place says Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. HRW believe that her release is a deeply cynical ploy by the military government to distract the international community from its illegitimate elections. Human Rights Watch calls for 2,100 other political prisoners to be freed. To read further, click here.

Paul and Rachel Chandler, British Citizens, are freed from Somali pirate detention. To read further, click here.

Cases

Abbasi and others [2010] EWHC 2894 (Admin)
The Court considered whether the SSHD should have afforded claimants the benefit of the now withdrawn seven year concession policy (DP5/96) and ordered that in respect of two claimants the SSHD be made to reconsider two applications for leave to remain under DP5/96 as both claimants fell within the terms of the policy. Click here for the full judgment.

Naik v SSHD & Anor [2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin)
The claimant, Dr Naik, an Indian national, leading Muslim writer and public speaker, who had visited the UK many times previously and proposed to speak at certain events in 2010 was excluded by the Secretary of State on 16th June 2010 from visiting the UK. He argued that it was a breach of his legitimate expectation to be denied entry to UK and furthermore that there had been procedural unfairness and deficient reasoning on the part of the Secretary of State in her decision, violating his human rights [Article 10 (freedom of expression) ECHR rights]. The Court accepted that there had been some procedural unfairness in the decision of 16th June 2010 but the claimant could have no legitimate expectation of entering the United Kingdom as Secretary of State had power to exclude those who fell within the "unacceptable behaviours policy" and the Secretary of State was not required to consider exclusion before entry clearance was granted. The Court found that any interference with Dr Naik's Article 10 rights was justified. Click here for the full judgment.

Anwar and others v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 1275
The Court of Appeal found that the AIT did have jurisdiction to hear cases notwithstanding that the appellants had not left the UK but once the Secretary of State had raised the point that the appellants could only appeal out of country (S92(1) of NIAA 2002) that operated as a bar to proceedings. S92 NIAA 2002 operates independently of the will of either party so as to bind the Tribunal regardless. It offers a point which can be, but need not be, taken. Had the point not been taken by the Secretary of State the Immigration Judge would have been bound to proceed with the appeal. Click here for the full judgment.