‘Recently I have seen an increase in EU nationals enquiring about becoming British. I always ask the client why they feel the need (given the extensive rights that EU law secures) to move between EU states. The invariable answer is a fear that Britain will leave the EU.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 12th February 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Judges making wasted costs orders (WCOs) are to be placed under a duty to report the lawyers involved to their regulator in a bid to make them “consider more carefully the decisions they make in handling a case”, the government has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 6th February 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Where the Secretary of State for the Home Department intended to remove from the United Kingdom a person suffering from a mental illness, whether that illness fell within the definition in the Secretary of State’s immigration detention policy of a “serious mental illness” which could not be satisfactorily managed within detention, so that the person could not be detained absent very exceptional circumstances, did not depend on whether the mental illness was of a level of requiring in-patient medical attention or rendering the person liable to being sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983, but on whether in all the circumstances the person was “suffering” from the illness and the illness was serious enough to mean that it could not be satisfactorily managed in detention.’
WLR Daily, 28th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The comedian who is said to have invented the quenelle gesture, which is seen by many as anti-semitic, has been banned from entering the country as Nicolas Anelka could be given a five match ban.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd February 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A mentally-ill Ghanaian man who was wrongly held in immigration detention centres is to receive “substantial” damages following a High Court ruling.’
BBC News, 29th January 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
ZZ (France) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 7; [2014] WLR (D) 26
‘Where the state authority refused to permit a citizen of the European Union admission to the United Kingdom on grounds of public security, the national court had to ensure, as a minimum requirement, that he was informed of the essence of the grounds of the decision. While the manner in which that was done had to take due account of the necessary confidentiality of the related evidence against him, the need to protect such confidentiality was not capable of justifying non-disclosure of the essence of the grounds.’
WLR Daily, 24th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The hidden plight of women asylum seekers detained in Britain is exposed today as a major new report warns that female rape and torture victims are being locked up indefinitely, suffering from depression and being intimidated by male guards.’
The Independent, 29th January 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Home Office is covertly targeting the most vulnerable asylum seekers – those considered mentally unfit, or victims of torture – for deportation as part of the government’s hardline stance on immigration, according to lawyers and charity workers.’
The Guardian, 25th January 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG (Case C-400/12); [2014] WLR (D) 4
‘The ten-year period of residence in article 28(3)(a) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states (OJ 2004 L158, p 77) had to be continuous and calculated by counting back from the date of the decision ordering the expulsion of the person concerned. A period of imprisonment was, in principle, capable both of interrupting the continuity of the period of residence for the purposes of that provision and of affecting the decision regarding the grant of the enhanced protection provided for thereunder, even where the person concerned resided in the host member state for the ten years prior to imprisonment. However, the fact that that person resided in the host member state for the ten years prior to imprisonment could be taken into consideration as part of the overall assessment required in order to determine whether the integrating links previously forged with the host member state had been broken.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-378/12); [2014] WLR (D) 7
‘Under article 16(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states, periods of imprisonment in the host member state of a third-country national, who was a family member of a Union citizen who had acquired the right of permanent residence in that member state during those periods, could not be taken into consideration in the context of the acquisition by that national of the right of permanent residence for the purposes of that provision. The continuity of residence was interrupted by periods of imprisonment in the host member state of a third country national who was a family member of a Union citizen who had acquired the right of permanent residence in that member state during those periods for the purposes of article 16(2) and (3).’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A Jamaican man who commuted to London every day to sell crack on a council estate has used human rights laws to stop a deportation order.’
Daily Telegraph, 7th January 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Supreme Court, 18th December 2013
AA (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer [2013] UKSC 81; [2013] WLR (D) 499
‘Paragraph 352D of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (1994) (HC 394), as amended and inserted, which provided for the grant of leave to enter to the “child of a parent” who had been admitted to the United Kingdom as a refugee, did not extend to a child for whom a family member had taken responsibility under the Islamic procedure of “kafala” and whose “adoption” did not fall within the meaning of paragraphs 6 and 309A of the Rules.’
WLR Daily, 18th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A Nigerian asylum seeker who starved himself for three months has lost his legal bid to stay in the UK.’
BBC News, 17th December 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Claimants who had unsuccessfully sought asylum and were granted at the age of 16½ discretionary leave to remain until they reached the age of 17½ had an effective remedy in judicial review to challenge the initial rejection of their asylum claims.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A man who broke his spine when he tried to commit suicide by running head first into a concrete wall while in detention awaiting deportation has lost his High Court damages action.’
The Independent, 11th December 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (Case C-394/12); [2013] WLR (D) 481
‘According to article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L50, p 1)), in circumstances where a member state had agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the criterion laid down in article 10(1) of the Regulation—namely, as the member state of the first entry of the applicant for asylum into the European Union—the only way in which the applicant could call into question the choice of that criterion was by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that member state, which provided substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.’
WLR Daily, 10th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A couple of years ago a lot of lawyers practising in housing, immigration and welfare benefits got very excited by the case of Ruiz Zambrano (European citizenship) [2011] EUECJ C-34/09. The reason for this excitement was that the ECJ said that art.20, of the Treaty, required member states to grant a right of residence to a third country national, who was the primary carer of an EU national, if a refusal to would result in the EU national being forced to leave the EU..More excitingly, this applied to EU nationals who had not left their member state, i.e. it would apply to the parents of British nationals.’
NearlyLegal, 9th December 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This WMS was laid in Parliament on 9 December 2013, and delivered in the House of Commons by Theresa May and in the House of Lords by Lord Taylor of Holbeach.’
Home Office, 9th December 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
© Inner Temple Library 2025