News & Views Monday 15th August to Sunday 21st August 2016  
Changing the Terms of Immigration Bail

The power of the Home Secretary to vary the bail conditions of a person released from immigration detention has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the Secretary of State had the power to relax or discharge conditions which the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) imposed on a person being released on bail from immigration detention. The court therefore allowed the appellant's appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) that it was the FTT which had exclusive power to vary its bail orders.

Read more: Duncan Lewis,

UK Inquest Reveals Brutality of Immigrant Detainee’s Death

A Home Office internal inquiry into the death of a seriously ill man in hospital in 2012 exposes the barbaric treatment of immigrants in the UK. The 43-year-old man, whose name his family requested not be published, had a heart condition. At the time of his death, he was sedated and remained handcuffed while lying in a hospital bed. The man was married with three children and was being detained at Harmondsworth immigration removal centre, near Heathrow airport. He was not judged to be any risk to the public, but was detained because he allegedly failed to report to police under his bail conditions.

On November 9, 2012, while being detained he became seriously unwell and was taken to Harefield hospital in Middlesex suffering from heart problems. He was to die eight days later at the hospital, on November 17, before he could receive the aortic valve replacement he needed. He was being detained by GEO, the private security contractor employed at Harmondsworth. The details of his detention are harrowing to read. Until seven hours before he died, he was attached by his wrists to a two-metre closet chain, with handcuffs put on him for some of the time. He had requested he be allowed to go home to be surrounded by his family before he died. The Home Office declined his request and two subsequent requests from his solicitor. The report says of this affront to human dignity and democratic rights, “There would appear to be a serious breakdown in communication under the current detention reporting process.”

Read more: Dennis Moore, WSWS,

Trump Proposes 'Extreme Vetting' For Immigrants to U.S.

Donald Trump called Monday for "extreme vetting" of immigrants seeking admission to the United States, vowing to block those who sympathize with extremist groups or don't embrace American values. He said the policy would first require a temporary halt in immigration from dangerous regions of the world. Speaking in swing state Ohio, Trump also said his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton lacks the "mental and physical stamina" to take on the Islamic State. He said destroying the terror group would be the centrepiece of his foreign policy and he would partner with any countries that share that goal — specifically singling out Russia as a nation the U.S. could have a better relationship with. "Any country that shares this goal will be our allies," Trump said. "We can never choose our friends, but we can never fail to recognize our enemies." Ahead of Trump's address, Clinton and Vice-President Joe Biden vigorously challenged the Republican nominee's preparedness to be commander in chief. Biden called Trump's views "dangerous" and "un-American" and warned that Trump's false assertions last week about President Obama founding the Islamic State could be used by extremists to target American service members in Iraq. "The threat to their life has gone up a couple clicks," he said.
Read more: CRC News,


Refugee RefusedNnaturalisation on Good Character Grounds

A recent Judicial Review heard before the High Court of Justice raises important considerations about the good character requirements for naturalisation, specifically in the context of evidence provided in earlier asylum applications. This is the case of OM, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2016] EWHC 1588 (Admin) (see here: which concerned a judicial review brought by a refugee against the Secretary of State's refusal of his application to naturalise as a British citizen. The Secretary of State (SSHD) refused the Claimant's naturalisation application on the ground that he did not satisfy the good character requirement provided by Section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 ('the Act'), arising from his previous employment as an intelligence officer in the Serbian Security Services in Kosovo. The issue relevant to the Claimant's good character was related to his involvement, support and role in war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Posted by: Gherson Immigration 4 Aug 2016,

6000 Migrants Sue Germany Over Delayed Asylum Requests

Nearly 6,000 legal complaints have been submitted to the German Ministry for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) over the slow processing of requests. Migrants - who should only be waiting a maximum of three months - have been told waiting times could be as long as two years, while complex cases may take even longer. The number of delayed requests has more than doubled since last year, when the number of so-called “application for failure to act” proceedings stood at 2,300. However the figures could be even higher, as statistics only include cases of those refugees who have already applied for asylum. A spokesman said: “Complaints over starting of an asylum proceeding could not be included in the statistics since those people do not possess an identification number.”

Read more: Vickiie Oliphant, Express,

Judicial Review Guide 2016

The Guide has been prepared with all Court users in mind, whether they are persons who lack legal representation (known as ‘litigants in person’) or persons who have legal representation. Provides a general explanation of the work and practice of the Administrative Court. It is designed to make it easier for parties to conduct judicial reviews in the Administrative Court, by drawing together into one place the relevant statutory provisions, rules of procedure, practice directions, and case law on procedural aspects of judicial review. It provides general guidance as to how litigation in the Administrative Court should be conducted in order to achieve the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

Download the full guide: