header-logo header-logo

29 September 2020
Issue: 7904 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Deportation ruled unlawful

Home Office under fire for treatment of asylum seeker

The Home Office unlawfully removed an asylum seeker from the UK and unlawfully detained her in Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre, the Court of Appeal has held.

The woman, PN, who is now 27 years old, claimed asylum on the grounds she would be persecuted for being a lesbian if returned to Uganda. The Home Office rejected her claim on the basis of lack of proof. PN came to the UK, aged 17 years, as an accompanying child on a visitor’s visa but was arrested as an over-stayer three years later. She was held and removed under the detained fast track (DFN) process―a system that was used for about 10,000 cases before ending in 2015 after being held ultra vires and unlawful. The Home Office was ordered by the High Court to help PN return to the UK, but after doing so it appealed, arguing that PN’s removal had not been unlawful.

In R (oao) PN (Uganda) v Home Secretary [2020] EWCA Civ 1213 this week, however, the Court of Appeal dismissed the home secretary’s appeal. It granted PN’s cross-appeal in part, holding that periods of her detention were unlawful.

Sulaiha Ali, solicitor, Duncan Lewis, who acted for PN, said the DFT process meant asylum seekers ‘were subjected to extremely truncated time frames in which to put forward their asylum claims.

‘This process has since been declared as unlawful and we are extremely pleased that the Secretary of State’s latest attempt to try and reargue matters that have already been determined by the court has been refused. We hope that she now turns her efforts to considering our client’s protection claim promptly, given that her actions caused our client to be subjected to a structurally unfair process that resulted in her being unlawfully detained and removed to Uganda where she was exposed to horrific rape and torture.’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll