header-logo header-logo

12 August 2016
Issue: 7711 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Passport

R (on the application of XH and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1898 (Admin), [2016] All ER (D) 166 (Jul)

The Divisional Court dismissed the claimants’ applications for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State’s cancellation of their passports under the Royal Prerogative on the basis that they were persons suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activities. Its reasons included that it was not to be implied that Parliament had intended to abrogate the Royal Prerogative power in relation to terrorism-related activities when it had enacted the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.

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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
Britain’s new acknowledgement that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, and accompanying settlement-goods ban and sanctions, is significant but overdue, argue Danny Friedman KC and Victor Kattan in NLJ this week
New planning fee rises, wider trade union access rights and a service-by-email trap feature in Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
back-to-top-scroll