header-logo header-logo

17 May 2013
Issue: 7560 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Left in limbo

A Home Office policy that leaves children in limbo by making successive grants of short periods of leave fails to consider the welfare and best interests of the child, the High Court has held.

In SM and TM and JD and Others v SSHD [2013] EWHC 1144 (Admin), Mr Justice Holman ruled the policy unlawful.

The case concerned foreign national children who were granted discretionary leave to remain for three years under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when the Home Office policy DP5/96 was withdrawn.

Such children were usually granted indefinite leave to remain under the old regime. Sophie Freeman, instructing solicitor at Coram Children’s Legal Centre, said the judgment recognised that repeated grants of temporary status could be “damaging to the welfare of children and contrary to their best interests”.

Issue: 7560 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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