LEGAL BULLETIN
NO 139
(published 22nd May 2009)
NEWS
The British Medical Association said that reform of tier one skilled migrant category was unfair on doctors from outside the EU. The changes mean that junior doctors who have completed the foundation state of their training and want to move onto specialist training need to have a masters degree. Even though a medical degree is a five year course it is not classified as a masters degree. The changes will affect junior doctors who have already started their training and medical students. The BMA warned of the consequence of a shortage of doctors and the impact on NHS (more info)
The Institute of Race relations reproduced a collective letter from academics who have voiced their concerns about the ways they are being drawn into implementing immigration procedures and check immigration status of students and colleagues. (more info)
Human Rights Watch report that the conflict in Pakistan between the Taliban and the Pakistani army is harming civilians (more info)
CASES
In Masaev v Moldova ECHR 2009 [Application 6303/5] the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 9 (right to freedom of religion) in a case where an individual charged with an offence of practising a religion not recognised by the state and was sanctioned by the state by way of a fine for practising his religion. The individual was a Muslim and a member of an unregistered denomination in Moldova who was praying on private premises. The Court found that this represented an interference with his right to freedom of religion which did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not necessary in a democratic society. The Court recognised that to accept that such a sanction could be made in such circumstances would mean that a state could dictate what a person must believe. (more info)
In KD (Ivory Coast) v SSHD (2009) 14th May 2009 (unreported), the Court of Appeal held that the AIT had carried out a proper balancing act when considering the Article 8 rights of a person facing deportation. The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had been dismissive of the seriousness of the offences and had not stated in terms that it had regard to the policy of the SSHD on committing crimes in the United Kingdom. The appellant was a person with a poor criminal record and was a young adult (21 years of age). However, he had been lawfully in the UK for 15 years since the age of 5 and had been granted Indefinite leave to remain. He had been educated in the UK and was receiving medical treatment for a serious mental health illness. The Court agreed that the AIT was right to find that private life could only be enjoyed in the UK and upheld the
AIT finding that his removal would interfere with his Article 8 (private) rights.
R (on the application of HBH) and SSHD [2009] EWHC (928) Admin the Court found a Home Office assessment of age unlawful. In deciding whether to refer a case for criminal prosecution, it is unlawful for the SSHD to rely on a summary assessment of age about a person's appearance and demeanour which strongly suggests that they are over 18. (more info)
