Afghan boy unlawfully removed from UK for 18 months can claim damages
12 April 2022
No Comments
The Court of Appeal has held that the unlawful removal of a vulnerable Afghan child and the 18 months of disruption to his private life
The Court of Appeal has held that the unlawful removal of a vulnerable Afghan child and the 18 months of disruption to his private life
Part 3 of the Nationality and Borders Bill 2021 includes provisions relating to immigration offences and enforcement. It criminalises arriving in the UK, as well
Hot on the heels of this summer’s confected controversy over last minute legal challenges to removals of asylum seekers, the Court of Appeal has ruled
On 14 March the High Court suspended the Home Office’s removals policy. The decision means that the system of giving migrants “removal windows” within which
In R (FB and NR) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKUT 428 (IAC), the appellants challenged the legality of the Home Secretary’s
Back in July 2015, the Upper Tribunal delivered a puzzling judgment in the case of R (Bilal Ahmed) v SSHD (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effect
The recent decision in R (SB (Afghanistan)) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 215 concerned the removal of an Afghan asylum seeker last year. As the judgment
The High Court has issued a helpful reminder to the Secretary of State that basic rules of procedural fairness continue to apply, even in the
The Court of Appeal has held that the unlawful removal of a vulnerable Afghan child and the 18 months of disruption to his private life entitles him to damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 and under EU law. The case is QH (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the...
Part 3 of the Nationality and Borders Bill 2021 includes provisions relating to immigration offences and enforcement. It criminalises arriving in the UK, as well as formally entering, making it almost impossible to claim asylum in the UK without first committing a criminal offence. People helping asylum seekers get to...
Hot on the heels of this summer’s confected controversy over last minute legal challenges to removals of asylum seekers, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Home Office’s ‘removal window’ policy is unlawful because it denies the common law right of access to a court. In a timely reminder...
On 14 March the High Court suspended the Home Office’s removals policy. The decision means that the system of giving migrants “removal windows” within which they can be removed from the UK without warning will be halted for the time being. Mr Justice Walker, in a case brought by the...
In R (FB and NR) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKUT 428 (IAC), the appellants challenged the legality of the Home Secretary’s removals policy (traditionally known as Chapter 60 of his Enforcement Guidance and Instructions, now titled Judicial reviews and injunctions). Specifically, the challenge tackled the...
Back in July 2015, the Upper Tribunal delivered a puzzling judgment in the case of R (Bilal Ahmed) v SSHD (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effect (IJR) [2015] UKUT 436 (IAC). The nub of the decision was that where the Secretary of State refuses an application on the basis that the...
The recent decision in R (SB (Afghanistan)) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 215 concerned the removal of an Afghan asylum seeker last year. As the judgment records, the case generated a significant amount of media attention amid reports that it had taken place in breach of a High Court order,...
The High Court has issued a helpful reminder to the Secretary of State that basic rules of procedural fairness continue to apply, even in the thorny context of removal windows and detention. In R (AT & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2714 (Admin), HHJ Walden-Smith...
