header-logo header-logo

28 March 2013
Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Immigration

R (on the application of Lord Carlile of Berriew & Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 199, [2013] All ER (D) 224 (Mar)

It was settled law that, where special expertise was required, the court had to grant a wide margin to the secretary of state’s decision in matters of national security and foreign policy and the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the secretary of state. The executive took responsibility for issues of national security and the handling of international relations and was democratically accountable for the merits of the decisions of Parliament. The court reserved to itself the responsibility for seeing that the decision complied with the law, was not irrational and complied strictly with procedural requirements. The secretary of state had accordingly been entitled to have regard to the welfare of the local staff and to the protection of British property in Tehran in refusing entry to the UK to a prominent Iranian dissident.

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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll