Issue 150 - 10th August

Thursday 13 August 2009

Share This Page

Email This Page

ILPA and HJT Training announced the launch of their "Compilation of Immigration and Asylum Policies of the Home Office" on 7 September 2009. The compilation is in two volumes (Volume 1: Regular Migration Under the Immigration Rules; Volume 2: Asylum and Other Forms of Protection; Enforcement Action). Read more.


The Home Office announced changes to the New Points System including modified rules on students' maintenance requirements, developing new guidance for 'milkround' recruitment campaigns to provide a truer test of the resident labour market whilst meeting the needs of businesses, and, in future, looking at developing a new employer led route for interns to sit alongside and complement our existing Government Authorised Exchange schemes, as well as making a number of changes to the guidance for points-based system sponsors. Read more.


The Tribunal completed the hearing in GS Afghanistan considering the impact of Article 15(c) and risks to civilians arising from armed conflict in Afghanistan. The critical issue is likely to be over the nature of threats to civilians' life and person that fall for assessment: the Secretary of State maintains that these are only the most direct consequences of indiscriminate violence, whereas GS Afghanistan himself argues that it includes the humanitarian consequences of several decades of indiscriminate violence, which some sources suggest leads to 40,000 excess deaths annually due to food shortages. Mark Symes is counsel, instructed by IAS.

In JL (A8 worker, lawful employment) Poland [2009] UKAIT 00030 (02 July 2009) the Tribunal considered the registration of workers from A8 countries. They concluded that when reg 7(2)(c) takes effect on 'receipt' of a valid WRC it contemplates authorising the work, and making the employer an "authorised employer", only prospectively from its date of issue. Read more.

In NR (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 856 Goldring LJ in the Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal may in its discretion permit a concession to be withdrawn if in its view there is good reason in all the circumstances for that course to be taken. Read more.

Foskett J in the Administrative Court in Rostami (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 2094 (Admin) considered an unlawful detention challenge, opining that it was speculation to consider there to be a possibility that the Iranian authorities will change the policy concerning the evidence needed to confirm the identity of someone the UK authorities wish to return to Iran. In general, portions of the total period of a foreign national prisoner's detention could be taken out of account because he was in prison for the offences of which he was convicted, but where criminal offences such as non-compliance with removal arrangements arose out of the very reason a Claimant was in immigration detention, it was difficult to see the justification for distinguishing between the two forms of detention.

Hickinbottom J in the Administrative Court in V, R (on the application of) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal & Anor [2009] EWHC 1902 (Admin) found that Parliament must have intended the tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly: and, consequently, provisions that are not incompatible with the express rules can be readily implied insofar as they are necessary for achieving fairness and justice. Given the strict rules of evidence are waived by rule 51(1) of the Procedure Rules, it was open to the AIT to admit evidence of spent convictions and of a charge that had been withdrawn from a jury, albeit that not much weight might be given to those sources.

HHJ Vosper QC in the Administrative Court in Chahboub (R on the application) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 1989 (Admin) (1 July 2009) found that, given Prison Service Order 4630 at paragraph 3.9 provides that persons detained only under the Immigration Act must be treated as unconvicted prisoners with the same status and privileges, and that such individuals can only be held with convicted prisoners with their recorded agreement, it was a breach of Article 5 ECHR to fail to take that policy into account, given that the European Court has made it clear that there must be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on, and the place and conditions of detention.


HJT Training announced their autumn season of courses. Read more.

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

+ View more awards