7. Challenging decisions: appeals, administrative and judicial review

2021 ◽  
pp. 247-276
Author(s):  
Gina Clayton ◽  
Georgina Firth ◽  
Caroline Sawyer ◽  
Rowena Moffatt
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Current Structure ◽  
Administrative Review ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Immigration And Asylum

This chapter discusses the development of the current structure of the appeals bodies—the Appeal Tribunal and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC)—and their procedure. It sets out the limited rights of appeal following the implementation of the Immigration Act 2014. It has sections on administrative review and judicial review. The chapter also considers whether there is a right to a fair hearing in immigration and asylum decisions. It concludes with a section on immigrants and asylum seekers’ access to legal representation, including funding.

7. Challenging decisions: appeals, administrative and judicial review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gina Clayton ◽  
Georgina Firth ◽  
Caroline Sawyer ◽  
Rowena Moffatt ◽  
Helena Wray
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Administrative Review ◽  
The Law

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter discusses the structure of the appeals bodies—the Appeal Tribunal and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—and their procedure and jurisdiction. It sets out the limited rights of appeal following implementation of the Immigration Act 2014. It has a section on administrative review. It concludes with a section on immigrants and asylum seekers’ access to legal representation.

Contempt of Parliament and Constitutional Rights

1998 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-237
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
Public Servants ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Constitutional Right

The appellant, Mutasa, was a former Speaker of the then House of Assembly. He had addressed a seminar of senior public servants where he had voiced the opinion that the calibre of MPs was so low as to make Parliament meaningless and that they were uninformed, lacked intelligence and demeaned the institution of Parliament. The respondent, the Speaker of Parliament, ruled that the appellant's words constituted a breach of parliamentary privilege and a select committee of members of Parliament was appointed to investigate the matter. The committee took evidence from witnesses in the absence of Mutasa. He was questioned but was not allowed legal representation and the select committee also refused his request to recall, for further examination, witnesses who had testified. As a result of the committee's recommendations, Mutasa was found guilty of contempt of Parliament and severely reprimanded by the Speaker. Mutasa sought a judicial review of the proceedings of the select committee arguing that the finding of contempt should be quashed on the grounds that the committee's procedure had violated his right to a fair hearing (contrary to section 18(2) of the Constitution) and that his utterances outside Parliament were protected by his constitutional right to freedom of expression. The Speaker then issued a certificate under section 6(1) of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act which the presiding judge deemed to be conclusive of the matter and accordingly stayed the proceedings. Mutasa appealed to the Supreme Court.

Britain’s authoritarian turn

Race & Class ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 030639682198918
Author(s):  
Frances Webber
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Overseas Operations ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Looking Back

Looking back, in December 2020, at the year since Boris Johnson’s Conservatives were swept back into government with a huge majority, the author identifies a raft of new laws, Home Office measures and government proposals in the fields of policing, crime, and immigration and asylum which embody long-held rightwing projects. Coming on top of already discriminatory practices, these include restrictions on the fundamental right of peaceful protest and freedom from invasive and racist policing, the subjection of migrants and asylum seekers to dangerous and inhumane conditions and the removal of legal protections for asylum seekers. Simultaneously, Bills going through parliament restrict or remove altogether the legal accountability of state actors, including soldiers on overseas operations and police informants, for crimes including torture and murder. Citizens’ recourse to the courts to challenge unlawful ministerial decisions is also under threat.

Immigration and Asylum Seekers

2009 ◽  
pp. 65-70
Author(s):  
Christine James ◽  
Janaki Tampi
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Immigration And Asylum

14. The grounds for judicial review

2020 ◽  
pp. 309-353
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.

New Labour's Community of Rights: Welfare, Immigration and Asylum

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
LYDIA MORRIS
Keyword(s):  
Labour Market ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Conditional Approach ◽  
Market Needs ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
And Control

This article shows how a conditional approach to rights dominates New Labour's perspective, not only in the delivery of welfare for full citizens but also in relation to immigration, where rights are a privilege to be earned by meeting labour market needs. This approach does not readily address the position of asylum seekers, who are claiming an absolute right of protection, but an erosion of entitlement during status determination has been used as a means of deterrence and control. The article applies a civic stratification perspective to these developments, as a means of bringing together the operation of rights with the practice of governance, and highlighting the ethical issues at play.

scholarly journals “Escaping the Sunken Place: indefinite detention, asylum seekers, and resistance in Yarl’s Wood IRC”

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-186
Author(s):  
AIDAN SEYMOUR-BUTLER
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
British Politics ◽  
Hunger Strike ◽  
Immigration Detention ◽  
Migration System ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Philosophical Questions

 The Law Society has recently raised concerns about the UK’s migration system, stating that ‘failures in UK immigration and asylum undermine the rule of law’. Nowhere are those problems more apparent than in the UK’s handling of migrants and asylum seekers in detention centres. A particular recurring issue that speaks to the Law Society’s concern is the absence of a defined time limit for immigration detention. The possibility of indefinite detention has been a source of tension both within British politics, and within UK immigration detention centres. An example of this can be understood with reference to the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) in Bedfordshire, known for its controversial and rebellious past. In 2015 Nick Hardwick, a former chief prisoner inspector, labelled the Centre a place of ‘national concern’, after examining the mistreatment of vulnerable detainees. Yarl’s Wood’s problematic history, seems to have continued into the present, following a detainee led hunger strike that resulted in ‘renewed concerns’ over health care in detention centres. In addition to protesting the standard of medical treatment received by detainees, the strikers’ underlying focus was on indefinite detention.  The Home Office’s response to these strikes was unsympathetic, it sent a letter to detainees suggesting that their continued participation in the strike may in fact result in their removal being accelerated. Although, the hunger strike ended in March 2018 the Home Office’s response to the strike raised some interesting legal and philosophical questions about human rights and resistance in detention centres. In order to grapple with some of these issues, this paper has been separated into two parts. The first part will attempt to contextualise the existing immigration regime and explore how legal disputes might fit within the broader scheme of opposing indefinite detention. It will also briefly examine the legal challenges that may arise from the use of threats of accelerated deportations. 

scholarly journals Refugees and Asylum ~eekers In Britain: V.K. Immigration and Asylum Act,1999.

Refuge ◽  
2000 ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Anthony H. Richmond
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Differential Treatment ◽  
The Law ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Systemic Discrimination

Trends in the numbers of asylum applicants in Britain 1997-00 are examined, together with changes in the law and in the treatment of refugees in the U.K. The system is designed to deter claimants, penalise anyone assisting illegal entry and aims to expedite removal. New regulations control the location of asylum seekers in the country, pending determination of their status. Differential treatment of various nationalities indicates systemic discrimination against certain groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document