Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

“Still the merry-go-round goes round, and round, and round 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 shows its despair at the immigration tribunal in the case of RM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 428 (13 April 2011). All three judges lament the fact that they have to remit the case back to the tribunal for yet further consideration, but the comments of Ward LJ are particularly heartfelt:

“Regrettably that undermines his decision. I say regrettably because it means that the Secretary of State’s appeal must be allowed and the matter remitted, yet again, for further reconsideration, now in the light of even more country guidance of the up to date state of affairs in Zimbabwe. This means another hearing, and more expenditure of public money on legal costs on both sides, probably with more appeals to follow and all of this in respect of a young woman who arrived in this country nearly ten years ago as a visitor, stayed as a student and some time in about 2002 was refused indefinite leave to remain as a dependant of her aunt because she was by then 18 years old. Now another nine years have passed. As far as I can tell she has no real family left in Zimbabwe; her aunts are all here and they wish for their mother, the appellant’s grandmother, to join them in the United Kingdom. As a result of our decision, the appellant’s future in this country is once more up in the air and still the merry-go-round goes round, and round, and round again. I shake my head in despair if not in disbelief at this extraordinary process which occupies so much court time.”

It’s not quite as graphic as his plea in an earlier case, “I ask, rhetorically, is this the way to run a whelk store?”, but it isn’t far off.

The response of some judges to asylum litigation is to suggest choking off legal aid. Perhaps a better, more appropriate solution would be to improve the quality of decision-making by UKBA officials and independent immigration judges in order to get it right first time.

Interested in refugee law? You might like Colin's book, imaginatively called "Refugee Law" and published by Bristol University Press.

Communicating important legal concepts in an approachable way, this is an essential guide for students, lawyers and non-specialists alike.

That said, some might think the error of law is in fact rather difficult to spot in this particular case and there was an alternative to remitting the case: not remitting it and allowing the determination of the immigration judge to stand. Finding that the CIO in Zimbabwe is not a wholly rational organisation seems sound: rational people do not generally go around intimidating, beating, torturing and murdering people. Most would agree that these activities are inherently irrational and not the first sign one would look for in a sound, stable, reasonable mind.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Free Movement

Free Movement

The Free Movement blog was founded in 2007 by Colin Yeo, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers specialising in immigration law. The blog provides updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law by a variety of authors.

Comments

One Response

  1. Dear Sir
    Problem is there is only one department in the United kingdom where there is no monitioring of deciosn making.For example if one ECO at British Embassy makes a baseless decision,there is no way he can be accounted for.even its proved in Appeal,this person makes a stupid deciosn and wasted onne years of innocent person in appeal process along with appeal costs in thousaad..thats is..No way on earth this perosn is sacked or given a warnign from his senior regarind his baseless deciosn.
    Please recall there is any deptt in UK which works like that…This is a shame and disgrace in our juistice system..we have let them play with people lives…..