header-logo header-logo

Immigration

04 December 2015
Issue: 7679 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Idira) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1187, [2015] All ER (D) 201 (Nov)

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the judge’s finding that his detention in prison, rather than in an immigration removal centre (IRC), had not been in breach of Art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held that detention in an IRC was generally more appropriate for immigrant detainees than detention in prison. That included time-served foreign national offenders who had been assessed as not posing a risk to the stability of IRCs or to the safety of others who were being held there. However, subject to exceptions for vulnerable detainees, detention in a prison was not generally arbitrary and in breach of Art 5(1).

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll