Issue 60 - 16th July 2007

Monday 16 July 2007

Share This Page

Email This Page

LEGISLATION

Amendments to the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill (Bill No. 3) are to be debated in its Committee State in the House of Lords on 17th and 19th July 2007. www.publications.parliament.uk

CASE LAW

JK (Democratic Republic of Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA (Civ Div) 12/07/2007
Where an immigration judge was presented with a refusal letter, on which the presenting officer relied, it was not incumbent on him to pursue each and every point regardless of whether or not the points had been pursued by the presenting officer. The points not addressed by the immigration judge were not such strong points that any immigration judge, properly directing himself, would have specifically dealt with them in his judgment.

R (FH; K; A; V; H; SW; HH; AM;SI AND ZW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 1571 (Admin)
It is only if the delay in deciding an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom is so excessive as to be regarded as manifestly unreasonable and to fall outside any proper application of the policy or if the applicant is suffering some particular detriment which the Home Office has failed to alleviate that a claim for judicial review might be entertained by the Court.

EO (Deportation Appeals : scope and process) Turkey [2007] UKIAT 00062 AIT reported
In determining an appeal against a deportation decision made on 'conducive' grounds the Tribunal should first confirm that the appellant is liable to deportation (either because the sentencing judge recommended deportation or because the Secretary of State for the Home Department has deemed deportation to be conducive to the public good). If the appellant is liable the Tribunal should secondly consider whether deportation would breach the Refugee Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights and if not consider thirdly paragraph 364 of the Immigration Rules HC 395.

In determining an appeal against a decision to give directions under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Tribunal should firstly consider whether the decision, showed by its terms, that the decision maker took into account the factors set out in paragraph 395C and exercised its discretion on the basis of these. If it did not the appeal should be allowed on the basis that it was not in accordance with the law and that the applicant awaits a lawful decision by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If properly made the Tribunal should then consider whether removal would breach the Refugee Convention or the European Convention on Human Right and, if not, whether discretion should have been exercised differently bearing in mind that the paragraph does not have the restrictions of the 'new' paragraph 364.

PUBLICATIONS

Medical Justice launched its new publication "Beyond comprehension and decency" A report on medical abuse in immigration detention on 12th July 2007. www.medicaljustice.org.uk

The New UK-US Extradition Treaty by Ben Hayes Statewatch Analysis No. 17 (July 2007)

Access to healthcare for migrants: Part 2 written by Sue Willman and Adam Hundt was published in Legal Action (2007) July

TRAINING

ILPA is running a training course on HSMP UPDATE : PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED CHANGES on Thursday 16th August 2007. Contact ILPA for times an details.

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