A Zimbabwean court has acquitted a leading politician Roy Bennett, a senior member of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's cabinet, on charges of plotting to overthrow Mugabe. Read more...
The Sunday Times reports that Home Office "surrenders to migrants" in an article dated 25th April 2010. It reported that the government fails to send Home Office Officials to one in five appeal hearings, totalling 34,627 appeals each year which go unrepresented by the Defendant. Read more...
President Sarkozy has ordered his government to present a draft law in May which would make the wearing of a burqa or niqab illegal in France. A parliamentary commission has been set up on voile integral. There is support for a total ban on wearing the veil in public. It is argued that it is necessary to protect French secular values and to promote gender equality as well as diminish the spread of radical fundamentalism. Those that argue against it claim it is a diversion from social and economic problems in France and a further stigmatisation of the Muslim community.
Read a full briefing paper from the Institute of Race Relations.
R (on the application of Patel) v SSHD 2010 QBD (Admin) 6 May 2010 (unreported)
The Administrative Court rejected a Judicial Review claim where it was argued by the claimant that the SSHD had wrongly and unlawfully refused and certified her asylum and human rights claim. The claimant argued that she would be at risk of harm prohibited by the refugee convention and Article 3 ECHR harm under the human rights convention on the basis that she was a childless/infertile woman returning to India, a country where she had suffered harm from family members and where she feared stigma and further harm from family and society. The Administrative Court found that she was not a member of a particular social group as a childless woman and she was not at risk of persecution or other harm, but accepted that being a childless woman may have social repercussions. The Court took into account that she was still married to her husband and there was the possibility of support and relocation.
Tariq v SSHD 
The Court of Appeal held that the closed material procedure for national security cases was not inherently unlawful when taking into account EU law and ECHR. The claimant was entitled to be told of allegations against him in order to be able to give instructions to his legal representatives.
BX v SSHD  EWCA Civ 481 4/5/2010
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear a claim for judicial review of a control order decision, and could entertain an application for urgent consideration and interim relief by way of an interlocutory injunction. The appropriate route for a controlled person wishing to seek interlocutory relief was by way of an application in appeal proceedings under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 s.10. Parallel proceedings were usually wasteful and unnecessary; in principle, where an adequate remedy otherwise existed, judicial review was a last resort.
For the full judgment, click here.
XL (China) v SSHD (2010) CA (Civ divison) 7/5/2010 unreported
The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had erred in law by ordering reconsideration of the appellant's appeal. The Court found that the Immigration Judge had heard the oral evidence, considered the witness statements and objective evidence and the reasoning of SSHD for refusing the asylum claim when coming to the decision he did about the claim. The Immigration Judge had properly directed himself on the burden and standard of proof and was entitled to find that the appellant was in need of international protection.