Free Movement Weekly Immigration Newsletter #103

Welcome to the weekly Free Movement newsletter! 

First of all, huge congratulations to Doughty Street’s Alasdair Mackenzie, as it was announced last week that he has been appointed King’s Counsel following the 2025 competition. My personal favourite of Alasdair’s cases will always be the fee waiver case of Dzineku-Liggison. You can find the full list of newly minted silks here. 

I was at an event recently where we were discussing the extent of MP engagement with the earned settlement proposals. This prompted me to check how many written questions had gone in on the topic. At last count, there have been 96 questions from both Houses, covering a wide variety of routes. The Home Office has said that equality and economic impact assessments will be published “in due course” which, given their conduct with these in recent years, means a considerable amount of time after the proposals have already been implemented. This is not good enough and the time for parliamentarians to take action on that point in particular is now.

This is my final newsletter for Free Movement as my last day is Wednesday this week, after which you will be in the very capable hands of Jasmine. For my leaving present I ask that anyone who has not yet contacted their MP to raise concerns about the earned settlement proposals, does so. You can use something like this as guidance although it is always better to write it in your own words. And of course, do complete the consultation too. It may feel hopeless, but standing up to the government and making clear that we do not agree that people should be treated this way is still important.

On Free Movement last week, it was cases galore as the pre-Christmas backlog was finally cleared. There was a write up of a case in the High Court, looking specifically at eligiblity for Home Detention Curfew during the deportation process. We also had posts on a Court of Appeal decision in an asylum appeal based on the risk of re-trafficking, the latest Supreme Court deprivation case, and a grant of interim relief in a trafficking support challenge.

There was yet another trafficking case write up, concerning the Home Secretary’s refusal of a grant of leave to a survivor of trafficking – although this one was conceded before the full hearing. This one on the High Court’s powers to make orders may be for a slightly more niche crowd, but I suspect that more people will be interested in today’s post on a case where an immigration barrister brought a judicial review against the Legal Ombudsman.

The most rewarding part of this job has always been the positive feedback I have received from readers who are going through the Home Office’s system and who have found my writing helpful. The sector has also been incredibly supportive. Thank you to everyone for all the kind words over the past few years. I will share my favourite of the responses to the announcement of my departure: “over the past couple of years, I’ve felt consistently that I’d rather have you deliver the bad news to me than anyone else”. Can’t ask for much more than that to be honest.

For everything else on Free Movement and elsewhere, read on.

Cheers, Sonia

What we’re reading

Oral evidence: Analysis of the asylum system, HC 1635 – Public Accounts Committee, 19 January

Oral evidence: Routes to Settlement, HC 1409 – Home Affairs Committee, 21 January

Thousands march in Crowborough over asylum plan for former military camp – The Guardian, 25 January

Sadiq Khan: UK should reject demonisation of immigrants – The New Statesman, 24 January

Afghanistan: Treatment of men showing signs of non-conformity to Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (PVPV) regulations – Asylos, December 2025

Politics over people? – Medical Justice, 21 January

‘Named community sponsorship puts control and compassion at the heart of refugee resettlement’ – Tony Vaughan KC MP for Labour List, 21 January

Waiting for academia: The impact of research on UNHCR policy, programmes and practice – Refugee Studies Centre, 6 January