‘Written Ministerial Statement made by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Michael Gove.’
Ministry of Justice, 12th May 2016
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘Dozens of complaints about how G4S ran three youth offender centres were ignored, a report has concluded.’
BBC News, 12th May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A new Detention Services Order, DSO 03/2016, has been issued by the Home Office. The name is innocuous — Considering detainee placement — but we can hope that it will have a significant impact because what it really requires is a proper risk assessment before a person is accepted into immigration detention. And about time too. We have in recent years seen some appalling and utterly in humane detention decisions, at least one of which appears directly to have led to the death of a very vulnerable elderly man, Alois Dvorcak.’
Free Movement, 9th May 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘There has long been considerable public concern over the restraint techniques used in young offender institutions and secure training centres. In Willow v Information Commissioner & Ministry of Justice [2016] UKUT 157 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal had to consider the public interest balance as it applied to section 31(1)(f) FOIA, i.e. information prejudicial to the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or other institutions in which people are detained. The request had been for the physical restraint training manual, and the FTT had upheld the application of the exemption.’
Panopticon, 6th May 2016
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Call for investigation into case of Syrian boy who was locked up for almost a month despite having documents proving identity.’
The Guardian, 4th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 803 (Admin)
‘Claiming that he had been unlawfully detained, the claimant sought, through the route of judicial review, immediate release from detention, determination of the defendant’s liability for his false imprisonment and resolution as to whether, if false imprisonment was established, damages should be compensatory or nominal. The defendant had detained the claimant under immigration powers for periods totalling seven years and two months. The judge held that the claimant had been unlawfully detained between 13 July and 10 December 2013 and was entitled to more than nominal damages for false imprisonment, to be assessed on a compensatory basis. The claimant failed in his public law claim in relation to accommodation, deportation and removal. An issue arose as to costs. The defendant contended, inter alia, that as the claimant had succeeded on only one issue out of four he was entitled to only 25% of his costs.’
WLR Daily, 12th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The government has been defeated again in the House of Lords over calls to take in child refugees from Europe.’
BBC News, 26th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘President McCloskey has firmly rejected the Home Office case against students alleged to have fraudulently obtained English language test certificate from ETS (“Educational Testing Services Ltd”) in the case of SM and Ihsan Qadir v Secretary of State for the Home Department IA/31380/2014. The President finds that the Home Office evidence suffered from “multiple frailties and shortcomings” and that the two witnesses produced by the Home Office were unimpressive. In short, the Home Office failed by a significant margin to prove the alleged fraud.’
Free Movement, 25th April 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘British border guards are virtually powerless to stop and detain Britons they suspect of returning from jihad or terrorism training, a whistle-blower has disclosed. UK Border Force guards have “zero discretion” to detain and interview travellers trying to re-enter Britain if they hold a UK passport and have not been “flagged” by police or security services.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st April 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Home Secretary has revealed plans to place a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women.’
Home Office, 18th April 2016
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
‘The government is paying more than £4m each year in compensation to people who were held unlawfully in immigration detention centres, figures show.’
BBC News, 20th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Campaigners have criticised as disappointing the home secretary’s plan to place a 72-hour limit on the detention of pregnant women held at immigration detention centres.’
The Guardian, 18th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Theresa May will announce plans to place a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women at immigration centres after the House of Lords voted in favour of an all-out ban.’
The Guardian, 17th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘It has never been easy to win as an immigration lawyer – but now the government is trying to make it impossible.’
The Guardian, 14th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The number of suicide attempts in immigration removal centres is at an all-time high, averaging more than one a day, according to official figures.’
The Guardian, 4th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention of an individual following his breach of a civil contact order, where he had no legal representation, did not violate his rights under Article 5, ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security of Person). However, the decision not to provide compensation to the individual following a failure to provide him with a lawyer during domestic proceedings resulted in a violation of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th March 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Regina v Roberts (Mark) and others [2016] EWCA Crim 71
‘In each of the 13 applications before the court, the applicants applied for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment or detention for public protection (“IPP”)), imposed between 2005 and 2008 under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Before the sentence of IPP was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the court was required to make the assumption that an offender was dangerous if he had been convicted on an earlier occasion of a specified offence, unless it was unreasonable to do so. Where he was found to be dangerous, and over 18, the court was required to pass a sentence of IPP or life imprisonment; the 2003 Act removed all discretion from the court once it was found that the offender was dangerous. All the applicants had either been detained in custody long after the expiry of the minimum term or had been recalled for breach of licence. The applicants submitted (1) that whatever might have been the position at the time the sentences of IPP were passed, the Court of Appeal had power under section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to pass sentences that, in the light of what had happened over the intervening years, now would be the proper sentence; (2) the Court of Appeal should reconsider the assessments made by sentencing judges in the light of R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864; [2006] 1 WLR 2509, and (3) a time could and had been reached when the length of the imprisonment was so excessive and disproportionate compared to the index criminal offence that it could amount to inhuman treatment under article 3 or arbitrary detention under article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That was because the detention no longer had any meaningful link to the index offence. A much delayed review of a sentencing decision could therefore be a mechanism the court could employ to avoid a breach of those Convention Rights. As the period now served by each of the applicants was so much longer than any conceivable determinate sentence would have required, the continued detention amounted to preventative detention and was therefore arbitrary. ‘
WLR Daily, 18th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has awarded the family member of an EU national a total of £136,048 in damages. The award consists of £76,578 for false imprisonment and £59,470 for breach of EU law. The Home Office is also criticised for having made “inaccurate and misleading” submissions to previous judges on multiple occasions and the damages include not just compensatory damages for lost earnings and distress but also special damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages.’
Free Movement, 30th March 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘A Colombian national certified as a danger to the public and convicted of crimes including blackmail, kidnapping and assault causing bodily harm is entitled to general damages for unlawful detention, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.
But appeal judges reduced the period for which Isaias Gaviria-Manrique is entitled to an award.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024