header-logo header-logo

17 April 2008
Issue: 7317 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

High Skills

News In Brief

A High Court ruling that government changes to the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) were unlawful means thousands of migrants who faced deportation will be allowed to stay. In R (on the application of HSMP Forum) v Secretary of State for the Home Office, Sir George Newman upheld a legal challenge that the retrospective rule changes were unfair and discriminatory. In 2002, thousands of highly skilled foreign workers were encouraged to come to the UK with their families under the HSMP. This allowed those with exceptional skills to stay in the UK long-term, without a prior job offer. However the Home Office suspended the scheme in November 2006, claiming some migrants were working in low skill jobs.

Issue: 7317 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll