header-logo header-logo

Immigration

11 August 2011
Issue: 7478 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of BB) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2011] EWHC 2129 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 28 (Aug)

Decisions regarding the entry, stay, and deportation of aliens did not concern civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. That applied to immigration measures which did not, or did not yet, result in proceedings but might result in immigration detention. Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) bail proceedings only took place in the direct context of deportation proceedings or immigration measures. They were an alternative to or relaxation of immigration detention and were directly in aid of contemplated deportation, conditioned on the person’s future attendance before an immigration officer. SIAC bail proceedings might affect a person’s civil and human rights, but did not determine them in the sense that the relevant issue at stake was the question of deportation. The bail proceedings were properly to be characterised as interim proceedings in the deportation proceedings or proceedings ancillary to the deportation proceedings. Article 6(1) of the Convention did not

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll