header-logo header-logo

16 October 2014
Issue: 7626 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No halt for asylum fast track

The Home Office does not need to suspend its detained fast track (DFT) process despite an earlier finding that it is unlawful, the Court of Appeal has held.

In July, Mr Justice Ouseley held that the DFT process had been operating unlawfully, but declined to suspend it until the Home Office had taken steps to address the risk of unfairness identified by the court.

Detention Action, the campaign group which brought the challenge, appealed, in R (on the application of Detention Action) v Home Secretary [2014] EWCA Civ 1270.

Delivering judgment, Lord Justice Longmore said: “The true questions for this court are whether the judge had a discretion to refuse relief other than a declaration and, if so, whether his discretion was wrongly exercised.”

The Home Office has taken steps to redress the unfairness, including reconsidering some cases.

Jerome Phelps, director of Detention Action, says: “We are disappointed. However, it is significant that neither court has found that the Home Office has addressed this unlawfulness.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll