Issue 129 - 9th march 2009

Monday 9 March 2009

Share This Page

Email This Page


Refugee and Migrant Justice (formerly refugee legal centre) published a report "Does every child matter" finds that asylum seeking children are regularly locked up and left without adult support. The report identifies that asylum seeking children face a hostile legal process and that the government breaches its own code of conduct with respect to asylum seeking children and that the government are failing to protect vulnerable children (press release 9th march, report 10th march 2009). See


HOME OFFICE UKBA: Statement of Change HC 314
"The purpose of this statement of changes is to implement Tier 4 of the Points Based System (new rules for child and adult students from outside the EEA), make amendments to existing Points Based System routes, delete the Sectors Based Scheme and amend existing provisions of the rules in relation to members of the armed forces and their family members. Other changes to the Rules relate to the


In NA and AA v SSHD [2009] EWHC 420 (Admin) the Court refused permission where the claimants argued that the delay caused by SSHD meant that their applications should be dealt with in light of any relevant policy in force at the date their applications were made irrespective of whether the policy was in force when their applications were decided.

In IH (S72 particularly serious crime) Eriitrea [2009] UKAIT 00012 the Tribunal held that S72 presumption must be read as rebuttable otherwise it would be inconsistent with qualification directive. S72 does not offend Article 33(2) of refugee convention. The Tribunal held that 2004 order is not ultra vires the enabling power of S72 2002 Act. The UK government has laid down the meaning of certain words in the refugee convention which was lawful. . There is no international interpretation of Article 33(20 of refugee convention or definition of offences within Article 33(2) refugee convention.

A decision of the tribunal of the Southern Africa Development Community Tribunal which upheld claims of 79 landowners that land seizure by the Government of Zimbabwe is arbitrary, racially discriminatory and contrary to the rule of law. It also ordered the Government to protect the farmers who remain on their land and to pay compensation to those already evicted. The ruling was the tribunal's first substantive judgment, and, the author claims, is all the more extraordinary because it is constituted under a treaty concerned not just with human rights but also cooperation in diverse matters such as trade and diplomacy. Claims the ruling has wide implications because it has shown the tribunal's fearless independence in advancing human rights in Southern Africa. [article by Tony Hickman March 5th 2009 Times law 59]


UN says that greater efforts were needed to boost womens rights in Iraq

Human Rights Watch calls upon Sri Lankan government and LTTE not to abuse and displace ordinary civilians


Human Rights Watch film festival 18th -27th March 2009

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards.

+ View more awards