header-logo header-logo

30 January 2015
Issue: 7638 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

R (on the application of Mohammed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4317 (Admin), [2015] All ER (D) 03 (Jan)

The claimant Afghani national issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration that his immigration detention had been unlawful and damages for false imprisonment. The Administrative Court held that, on the proper construction of para 16(2) of Sch 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, an erroneous view of the law, as opposed to an erroneous view of the facts, could not amount to “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that a person was liable to removal. Accordingly, the claimant’s detention had been unlawful. However, it had not been unlawful on the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh [1984] 1 All ER 983.

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

Test Article Upgrade

Test Article Upgrade

"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit...""There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal expands Midlands residential development team

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn adds employee benefits and executive compensation practice in London with partner Richard Surtees

NEWS

Family lawyers cite financial disincentives for issuing child protection orders

A series of recent decisions has clarified important principles across property law, from perpetuities to lease renewals and public rights over land
A series of recent decisions has clarified important principles across property law, from perpetuities to lease renewals and public rights over land
Employers cannot rely on wellbeing services alone to defend workplace stress claims after a High Court decision awarding almost £1m to an overworked employee
back-to-top-scroll