News
There are reports of disturbances at Oakington detention centre following the death of a detainee. Read more...
Representatives from all Member States met at Zaragoza from 15 to 16 April to discuss how migrant integration can become a driver for social cohesion in the EU. Read more...
Laura Devine asks whether immigration solicitors are an endangered species, in the Law Society Gazette. Read the article...
Cases
Charahili v. Turkey (no. 46605/07) and three other linked cases
The ECtHR has held that the proposed deportation of the applicants, one Tunisian and 10 Iranians, all UNHCR recognised refugees who had entered Turkey illegally, to Tunisia, Iran and Iraq, would violate Art 3, ECHR; that in two cases the conditions of their detention had violated Art 3; that detention in three cases violated Art 5(1) and in one Art 5(4) as well. In addition, the Court held that the State had to secure the release of two of the applicants and should not re-detain two others. Read more...
SS (India) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 388
Aikens LJ held that: (1) the policy DP 5/96 (when it was in force) is relevant to a case where deportation of a parent is being considered on grounds of a criminal conviction, including where the child born in the UK and resident in the UK for more than seven years is a British citizen; (2) the AIT erred in law by failing to give "detailed and anxious consideration" as to whether it is reasonable and proportionate for the British citizen family members who have lived all their lives in the UK, to emigrate to India in order that family life together continue there; (3) Lord Bingham's observation in EB (Kosovo) that it will "rarely be proportionate" to uphold an order for removal where it severs a genuine relationship with a spouse or child, was directed at removal cases, not deportation cases and that the observation might need to be qualified in relation to deportation because of the difference in that serious criminal offending may have an effect on the overall balance when considering the issue of proportionality under Art 8(2), as against the legitimate aim of preventing crime and disorder. Read more...
R (Ibrahim & anor) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 764 (Admin)
Burnett J rejected the Iraqi claimants' claims that their post-criminal-sentence immigration detention had been unlawful throughout as contravening the SSHD's policy, withdrawn on 14 January 2008, that he would not take enforcement action against nationals who originate from countries which were "active war zones". Burnett J did not accept that Iraq (at least as a whole) could properly be considered a war zone in 2006 and 2007. Furthermore, as neither claimant had raised the "active war zone" policy point in their appeals to the AIT against the decisions to deport them, Burnett J held that he would have refused their claims, in this judicial review of their consequent detention, on that ground as well. However the latter periods of each claimants' detention had been unlawful on Hardial Singh principles. Read more...
