Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
Immigration exception to data protection found unlawful. Again
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
The Court of Appeal has declared the government’s second attempt at an immigration exception for normal data protection law to be unlawful. The judgment in R (On the Application Of The 3Million) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1474 upholds that of the High Court below, which we covered previously here: Amended data protection exemption for migrants declared unlawful. The case was brought by the 3million group amongst others and they have a write up on their website.
This is by-the-by, but I’ve been ruminating a lot recently on the absence of a proper discipline of or principles to immigration law. Paragraphs 45 to 50 of this judgment provide an illustration of how properly structured “immigration law” might work in practice. Specific provisions would be needed beyond general fall-backs on human rights or administrative law. Binding rules would be needed rather than policies. And a proper role for Parliament would be built-in as a safeguard. As the judges go on to say at paragraph 51, this does not mean flexibility should be eliminated. Immigration law requires flexibility. But it should be bounded by clearly defined law and scrutiny.