Issue 134 - 16th April 2009

Thursday 16 April 2009

Share This Page

Email This Page

NEWS

With effect from 9th April 2009 there will be no fee required for a Certificate of Approval in order to comply with House of Lords Judgment in Baiai v SSHD.

Human Rights Watch called on the Sri Lankan government to stop violating the laws of war and to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka where 100,000 civilians are trapped by the LTTE. news story

CASES

In Kullas V SSHD [2009] EWHC 735 (Admin) CO/1637/2007 the Court found that a decision to detain can be rendered unlawful if the underlying refusal of leave to enter is tainted. The taint must take the form of either bad faith or irrationality. The identity of the holder of the information in respect of which a rationality judgment is to be made is the Immigration Officer who took the decision to refuse leave to enter rather than the Secretary of State. On the facts of the case the refusal of leave was neither irrational or in bad faith and the consequential detention was therefore not unlawful.

In MA v Ethiopia [2009] EWCA 289 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of a failed asylum seeker of Ethiopian nationality and who was of Eritrean origin who did not make a bona fide attempt to establish Ethiopian nationality at her embassy. She had approached the Ethiopian embassy with a view to obtaining nationality but she had told them she was Eritrean. The Ethiopian embassy had refused to issue her with documents establishing Ethiopian nationality. The Court reiterated the principle that it was not a universal proposition that the deprivation of nationality equated with persecution and that before surrogate protection is given a person must take all reasonable steps to secure home state protection. The AIT had failed to consider whether she had taken all reasonable steps to obtain Ethiopian citizenship. However, remittal was inappropriate because her efforts to obtain citizenship were not made in good faith

In SSHD V AHK & ORS [2009] EWCA Civ 287. The Court of Appeal set out the principles to be followed in determining whether a special advocate should be appointed to represent an applicant seeking judicial review of a refusal of British Citizenship. The refusal was because the applicant had not demonstrated good character and where SSHD was unwilling to disclose relevant material to the applicant on public interest grounds.

Latest tweets from Garden Court Chambers

Follow us on Twitter

Tweets by gardencourtlaw

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

+ View more awards