header-logo header-logo

Military base refugees win case

01 June 2017
Issue: 7748 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court of Appeal: Home Secretary acted unlawfully in refusing to consider UK entry

The Home Secretary acted unlawfully in refusing to consider entry to the UK for a group of refugee families on the British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus, the Court of Appeal has held.

The six claimants were among 75 individuals who washed ashore on the military base in 1998 after the boat they were travelling in foundered off the Cypriot coast. While the Home Secretary accepted the claimants were refugees within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention, she disputed their right to move to the UK on the basis they had no strong ties to the UK and there were ‘no reasons for treating them exceptionally’. Moreover, she argued, neither the 1951 Convention nor the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights applied to military bases. She said the Home Office had made arrangements with the Republic of Cyprus for the families.

The claimants countered that the 1951 Convention did apply to the military base in Cyprus, therefore the families should be allowed to move to the UK.

The court unanimously held, in R (Bashir & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 397, that the Refugee Convention applies directly to the military base by virtue of the earlier extension of the Refugee Convention to the colony of Cyprus in 1957. It ordered the Home Secretary to urgently reconsider the refusal of entry.

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Justice Irwin said: ‘The secretary of state must take the decision once more but on the basis that the Refugee Convention applies directly and the UK owes direct obligations to the claimants by operation of public international law.

‘In my judgment the outcome of that decision must take into account the history but cannot be determined by this court merely by re-analysing the historic evidence.’

Tessa Gregory, partner at Leigh Day, who acted for the refugees, said: ‘Our clients have been in legal limbo for 18 years living in wholly unacceptable conditions on a British military base. We hope the UK government will not seek to pursue further costly legal proceedings and will face up to its responsibilities.’

Issue: 7748 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll