scholarly journals Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 40

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-171
Author(s):  
Charlotte Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Law ◽  
Appeals Process ◽  
System 1

UNHAPPY FAMILIES AND USE OF ARTICLE 8 FOR FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERSImmigration minister Phil Woolas has attacked lawyers and charities that work on behalf of asylum seekers for undermining the law and “playing the system” by exploiting the appeals system.1 However, the case of Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department,2 handed down by the House of Lords on June 25th 2008, confirms the need for an effective appeals process, without which there would be no safety net for thousands of asylum seekers. The case concerns the application of article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)3 and the government’s policy regarding failed asylum seekers.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State could restrict the editorial decisions of broadcasters as regards the way in which messages from spokespersons for proscribed organizations were broadcast. The United Kingdom was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when the case was heard, but the case also predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is discussion of the legal position of the ECHR under the common law in the United Kingdom, and the concept of proportionality in United Kingdom’s domestic jurisprudence. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, in the House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State, and prison governors, could restrict prisoners’ access to journalists investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. In addition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10 issues this raises, Lord Hoffmann also in obiter dicta discussed the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998, parliamentary sovereignty, and the concept of legality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB: Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF [2007] UKHL 46

2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-238
Author(s):  
Susan Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Article 5

HUMAN SACRIFICES AT THE ALTAR OF TERRORIST CONTROLJoseph K in Franz Kafka’s The Trial is arrested and put on trial, but the evidence against him is never disclosed and so he is suspended in a legal nightmare. On December 16th 2004, the House of Lords, in A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ruled that indefinite detention of non-UK nationals, without charge or trial, was incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). In A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2), Lord Carswell said, “…no court will readily lend itself to indefinite detention without charge, let alone trial.”

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, in the House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State, and prison governors, could restrict prisoners’ access to journalists investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. In addition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10 issues this raises, Lord Hoffmann also in obiter dicta discussed the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998, parliamentary sovereignty, and the concept of legality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State could restrict the editorial decisions of broadcasters as regards the way in which messages from spokespersons for proscribed organizations were broadcast. The United Kingdom was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when the case was heard, but the case also predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is discussion of the legal position of the ECHR under the common law in the United Kingdom, and the concept of proportionality in United Kingdom jurisprudence. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords. This case concerned the Human Rights Act 1998, the willingness of the courts to engage with national security matters and, by extension, considered how key constitutional principles should shape the courts’ approach. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

United Kingdom: House of Lords on Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in A. and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and X and another v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Decision of 16 December 2004

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Feldman
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Practical Consideration ◽  
Immigration Control ◽  
Immigration Legislation ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Uk

After the attacks by Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Centre in New York and other sites on 11 September 2001, the UK Parliament enacted the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA). Part 4 of the Act allowed the Home Secretary to certify a person as a suspected international terrorist if he reasonably believed that the person's presence in the UK was a threat to national security and reasonably suspected that he or she was an international terrorist. If the person was subject to UK immigration control (i.e., had no right of abode in the UK, not being a British national), he or she could be removed from the UK and detained pending removal under immigration legislation. If a practical consideration (such as the absence of transport links between UK and the place to which the person could be removed) or a point of law which wholly or partly related to an international agreement (for example, where removing a person to his or her country of origin would render him or her liable to torture contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)) prevented a person's removal or departure temporarily or indefinitely, the Act permitted their detention.

R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26, House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Home Department

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26, House of Lords. This case considered whether a blanket policy excluding prisoners from cell searches was a proportionate response that was necessary to achieve the aim of that policy. There is also discussion of whether the common law could provide an alternative system of rights protection to that under the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW: RAISING THE STANDARD

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-492
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Search Techniques ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
General Importance ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
A Cell ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
In Cells

The decision of the House of Lords in R. (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1622 provides authoritative guidance as to how human rights issues should be treated in judicial review cases. In common with a number of other recent leading cases in this area, Daly concerns prisoners’ rights. All governors of closed prisons were required by the Home Secretary to operate a cell searching policy under which prisoners were not permitted to remain in their cells during searches, so as to prevent intimidation of those conducting searches and to stop prisoners gaining knowledge of search techniques. Prison officers were permitted to examine, but not read, legal correspondence stored in cells. The claimant, who stored such correspondence in his cell, successfully contended that the policy was unlawful to the extent that it precluded prisoners’ presence during examination of legal correspondence. This note highlights four points of general importance which arise from their Lordships’ decision.

Osman and police immunity in the English law of torts

Legal Studies ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law

This article examines and questions the nature of police immunity from claims for negligence in the investigation and suppression of crime, as stated by the House of Lords in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. This issue has been discussed before the European Court of Human Rights in Osman v United Kingdom, where the court held that a blanket application of the immunity was contrary to art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article will argue that this decision does not overturn the basic public policy principles for the immunity stated in Hill and that further examination of this area of law is required. It is submitted that if the law is considered in terms of proximity rather than in terms of public policy immunity, a clearer understanding of the principles underlying this area of law can be reached together with the desirable goal of removing the term ‘immunity’ from this area of law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document