header-logo header-logo

27 May 2021
Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Data protection , EU
printer mail-detail

LNB News: The3million and others welcome Court of Appeal's judgment that UK immigration exemption is unlawful

On 26 May 2021 the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled in R (on the application of Open Rights Group and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (Liberty and another intervening) [2021] EWCA Civ 800 that the so-called 'immigration exemption' in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018, which restricts certain data subject rights, was incompatible with Article 23 of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR). 

Lexis®Library update: The EU GDPR has now been replaced by the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) following the end of the Brexit transition period, but the court noted that the UK GDPR has the same legal status in the UK today as the EU GDPR had before that date and that differences between Article 23 of the EU GDPR and UK GDPR were not material.

The decision was welcomed by the3million, a campaign organisation for EU citizens in the UK, and by the Open Rights Group.

Sahdya Darr, Open Rights Group’s Immigration Policy Manager said 'This is a momentous day. The Court of Appeal has recognised that the Immigration Exemption drives a huge hole through data protection law, allowing the Government to deny access to information that may be being used to deny people their rights. If the Government holds information about you, it should only be in the most exceptional circumstances that it is denied to you, such as during a criminal investigation. Treating all immigrants like criminals and suspects is simply wrong.'

The question of what relief should follow the court's decision will be the subject of separate argument.

Further analysis of this decision will follow.

Source: Immigration Exemption judged unlawful, excessive, wrong by Court of Appeal

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 26 May 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

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