header-logo header-logo

Left in limbo

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

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to remain for three years under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when the Home Office policy DP5/96 was withdrawn.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

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll