‘Dozens of asylum seekers who arrived in the UK on small boats are due to be put on charter flights over the next two days, while lawyers have launched last-minute high court challenges to prevent their removal.’
The Guardian, 25th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Exclusion decisions prohibit entry to the UK and are made under a non-statutory power exercised personally by the Home Secretary. They tend to be used against foreign national (non-EU) prisoners who have taken up the offer of assistance to leave the UK under the facilitated returns scheme. They are made on the basis that preventing the person’s return here is conducive to the public good.’
Garden Court Chambers, 5th August 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘A group of asylum seekers due to be flown out of the UK this week in a Home Office operation targeting people who arrived on small boats have launched a mass legal challenge to their removal, the Guardian has learned.’
The Guardian, 11th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘You have to admire the ingenuity of lawyers. Who would have thought that the GDPR could be a tool to try and force the Home Office to allow a deported overstayer with a lengthy criminal record back into the UK to conduct an in-person appeal? Not the Court of Appeal for a start in Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1032.’
Panopticon, 11th August 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘It has been more than a year since the government launched its scheme to compensate victims of the Windrush scandal, and at least five applicants have died before receiving a penny. EachOther speaks to Windrush lawyers about the “boulders” being placed in the way of justice and what needs to be done.’
Each Other, 6th August 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘R (Mendes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 924 (17 July 2020): The only target of this appeal was Murray J’s order refusing interim relief in the form of a mandatory order requiring the Home Office to facilitate the return of Mr Mendes to the UK pending determination of the judicial review challenge of the certification of his case under regulation 33 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 that his removal pending any appeal would not be in breach of his human rights. The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the order of Murray J refusing the earlier application for interim relief in R (Mendes) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 2233 (Admin), and remitted the application to the Administrative Court for re-consideration and re-determination. A Portuguese national and an EU citizen, Mr Mendes, was born in 2000 and settled in the UK with his family in 2013 or 2014. But from 2015 to 2018, he was convicted of numerous criminal offences, including, on 6 March 2018, six robberies and he was sentenced to a 12-month detention and training order. While serving his custodial part of that sentence (and while aged only 17 years) the Home Office served notice of liability to deportation. Representations made by him were rejected. Instead, a deportation order was made on his eighteenth birthday on 17 September 2018. In the decision letter, the decision-maker certified under regulation 33, that Mr Mendes’s removal pending any appeal would not be in breach of his human rights.’
EIN Blog, 28th July 2020
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Remi, Sharon and Leonardo are all struggling to secure their lives in the UK after learning they’re not legally British.’
BBC News, 21st July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An asylum seeker who was deported under a “procedurally unfair” fast-track system is at the centre of a new battle with the Home Office to stay in the UK, in a case which could have repercussions for thousands of people whose applications to stay in Britain were rejected.’
The Guardian, 15th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘EU citizens will be deported for minor offences under Priti Patel’s post-Brexit immigration crackdown, despite having permission to stay, a leading lawyer has warned.’
The Independent, 14th July 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Barristers, former judges, politicians and campaigners are among 300 people who have signed an open letter to the home secretary, Priti Patel, urging her to grant asylum to an 11-year-old girl at high risk of female genital mutilation if taken abroad.’
The Guardian, 10th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Twins who were born in London and have never left the UK face deportation to different countries in the Caribbean where they have no close relatives, their families have told the Guardian.’
The Guardian, 7th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The lawyer representing 200 victims of the Windrush scandal says systemic racism is at the root of the problem.’
The Guardian, 22nd June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘This judgment concerns the definition of “an offence that has caused serious harm” for the purpose of an appeal against deportation on private and family life grounds under Article 8. In this set of cases, the Court of Appeal took a broad view as to the meaning of this provision, but also held that there must be evidence that the offender has actually caused serious harm.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Home Office is being investigated over whether it breached equality law when it introduced the “hostile environment” immigration measures that caused catastrophic consequences for thousands of Windrush generation residents living legally in the UK.’
The Guardian, 12th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Anthony Bryan had lived and worked in Britain for 50 years when he was suddenly detained and almost deported.’
BBC News, 8th June 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Only 60 people have received Windrush compensation payments during the first year of the scheme’s operation, with just £360,000 distributed from a fund officials expected might be required to pay out between £200m and £500m.’
The Guardian, 28th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Immigration Law Update with articles from Kate Jones, Tori Adams, Daniel Wand, Ben Haseldine and Jyoti Wood.’
4 King's Bench Walk, 5th May 2020
Source: www.4kbw.co.uk
‘In AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, Lord Wilson calls the European Court on Rights out on its claim that in Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 867, it was doing no more than “clarifying” its judgment in N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39 as to the circumstances in which removal or deportation will breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Close readers of the judgment in Paposhvili will be well aware of the numerous points at which the court uses, it is hard to doubt, intentionally, the very same language as is used in N to come to different conclusions.’
No. 5 Chambers, 29th April 2020
Source: www.no5.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024