header-logo header-logo

06 May 2010 / Alison Pickup
Issue: 7416 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Presume nothing

Alison Pickup analyses the changing nature of detaining foreign prisoners

In WL (Congo); KM (Jamaica) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 111, [2010] All ER (D) 221 (Feb) the appellants were foreign national prisoners (FNPs), detained beyond the end of their sentence pending their deportation from the UK under powers contained in Sch 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 (the 1971 Act).

It had emerged in the course of litigation that during a period from approximately April 2006, when the so-called “foreign national prisoners crisis” broke, until September 2008, officials in the Home Office’s Criminal Casework Directorate (CCD), which dealt with the detention and deportation of FNPs, had been operating a blanket policy of detaining all FNPs, despite the fact that their published policy stated that there was a presumption in favour of release in all cases. In September 2008, the published policy was amended so that it now contained a presumption in favour of detention of FNPs, which was then applied by CCD. This policy operated until January 2009, when, following the judgment of the Administrative

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll