header-logo header-logo

Immigration

29 April 2010
Issue: 7415 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Kiana and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] All ER (D) 110 (Apr)

Section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 contained no power for the secretary of state to provide subsistence only support to a failed asylum seeker.  The s 4 regime had to be contrasted with that under s 95 where a wider power was conferred on the secretary of state to provide support for asylum seekers and dependants of asylum seekers. Section 95 allowed for forms of support other than accommodation, on a standalone basis - that was not the case under s 4.

There was no suggestion that Parliament had intended the forms of support available under s 4 and s 95 were to be provided on a similar basis. Further, had s 4 conferred on the secretary of state a power to provide subsistence only support, the 1999 Act would be expected to provide an express right of appeal against a refusal to provide such support—it did not.

Moreover, s 4(2) of the

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

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Property litigation practice strengthened by partner hire

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

International arbitration team specialist joins the team

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll