header-logo header-logo

25 July 2014
Issue: 7616 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

Qongwane and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (the application of Singh (India)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] All ER (D) 167 (Jul)

Paragraph 353B of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC395 did not confer a discretion on the secretary of state. It was implicit in s 84(1)(f) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that the secretary of state might exercise discretions that related to immigration and asylum other than those conferred by the rules. The discretion not to remove a migrant with no rights to be in the UK was not one that was subject to any rule; it was a discretion exercised outside those rules. Paragraph 353B did not of itself create an obligation on the secretary of state to carry out a review in the circumstances to which it referred. A decision by the secretary of state that there were no exceptional circumstances that justified a finding that removal was no longer appropriate could not be appealed under s 84(1)(f) of the Act. Furthermore, if a decision was lawfully made to remove at

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll