Get RSS feed
Immigration cases
Secretary of State for the Home Department v SK (Sri Lanka) [2012] EWCA Civ 16 (19 January 2012) Thu January 19
TM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 9 (18 January 2012) Wed January 18
Naved (Student - fairness - notice of points) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 14 (IAC) (13 January 2012) Fri January 13
UKBA news
New application form and guidance for Bulgarian and Romanian applications Mon January 16
The UK Border Agency has published a new version of Form BR3, which is used to apply for an accessio
Update for Tier 4 sponsors: educational oversight and other changes Tue January 10
An update for Tier 4 sponsors about educational oversight and information about changes coming into
Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) - new procedure for Arts Council England endorsement Tue January 3
From today, applicants under Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) of the points-based system must follow a ne
Taiwan is added to the Tier 5 youth mobility scheme Thu December 22
From 1 January 2012, Taiwan will join the list of countries and territories that participate in the
London 2012 Games spectators: visa applications open from 1 January 2012 Tue December 20
From 1 January 2012 you can apply for visitor visas to come to the UK to watch the Games.
Supreme Court finds immigration detainee was falsely imprisoned
On 25 May 2011 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in Kambadzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 23
The issue was whether the Appellant was falsely imprisoned in circumstances in which there was a statutory power to detain, but the Secretary of State had failed to exercise that power in accordance with her published policy by conducting monthly reviews. By a majority of 3:2 the Court found that the conduct of the reviews was fundamental to the propriety of continued detention. The Secretary of State’s failure to conduct monthly reviews amounted to a material public law error in the exercise of her powers. Consequently, the detention could not be lawfully justified and the tort of false imprisonment was established.
That conclusion was not affected by the fact that if reviews had been carried out the detention could (or would) have been lawfully authorised. However, an hypothesis as to what might have happened but for the errors was relevant to an assessment of damages. There would be a further inquiry as to the quantum of damages. Article 5 ECHR did not add anything to the conclusions reached at common law.
Alex Goodman acted for Mr Kambadzi at all levels, being led by Raza Husain QC in the Supreme Court. Given the sea change in the law of unlawful detention established by this decision and its predecessor a few weeks ago, Lumba, any practitioner who wants to do the best for their detained clients should attend Alex's course for HJT on 21st June on detention in order to fully understand the implications of this pair of seminal judgments.
