The real value in The Secretary of State for the Home Department v PF (Nigeria)  EWCA Civ 1139 (04 July 2019) lies in the Court of Appeal’s review, considerations and conclusions upon the relevant statutory provisions, Immigration Rules and caselaw as applicable to a case giving rise to both an Article 3 medical condition claim and Article 8 deportation appeal.Continue reading
“The UT’s characterisation of the appeal was related to some trenchant observations which it made about what it perceived to be the Secretary of State’s practice of appealing routinely in any case where the FTT allowed an appeal against a deportation order, without any real attempt to identify an error of law as opposed to simply disputing the tribunal’s factual assessment. We are not in a position to comment either way about those observations, beyond saying that we hope that that is not the Secretary of State’s practice now, if it ever was”, so said Lord Justice Underhill in the Court of Appeal recently in Secretary of State for the Home Department v JG (Jamaica)  EWCA Civ 982 (12 June 2019).Continue reading
Thirty six pages and sixty six paragraphs encapsulate the Supreme Court’s considerations, reasoning and conclusions in Robinson (formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 11
People were beaten. Some hunted and abducted. Others arrested and detained. Citizens were killed. Children taken and detained. Deliberate internet shutdown covered up a massive operation of repression.
These are the events which unfolded in Zimbabwe from 14th January 2019 running to several days as people in various parts of the world simply watched whilst others steadfastly turned a blind eye to the atrocities.
Zimbabwe’s authorities, via the police, army and other ZANU(PF) agents, treating its own citizens as enemies of the state, launched a brutal crackdown on those involved or perceived to have organised or taken part in the recent fuel protests. Killing and other forms of ill-treatment were the authorities response to a long suffering nation that dared to express its discontentment with those supposed to lead and serve them.
It is most strange that it should staunchly be maintained before the Court of Appeal that Home Office Presenting Officers are aware of country guidance caselaw, yet a supposedly sufficiently experienced Home office Presenting Officer voluntarily made a concession that was inconsistent with relevant country guidance caselaw with the result that, also placing reliance upon that concession, an Upper Tribunal Judge allowed an appellant’s appeal.
Even stranger still is that it subsequently emerged that neither the Presenting Officer nor those that represented the Appellant had referred to nor relied upon applicable country guidance ceselaw in the Upper Tribunal.
MM (Malawi) & Anor v the Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 2482 (09 November 2018) as recently decided in the Court of Appeal, is largely a follow up and conclusion of that Court’s considerations following remittal of MM’s case to the Upper Tribunal as per MM (Malawi) & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1365 (12 June 2018).