header-logo header-logo

01 June 2017
Issue: 7748 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Military base refugees win case

Court of Appeal: Home Secretary acted unlawfully in refusing to consider UK entry

The Home Secretary acted unlawfully in refusing to consider entry to the UK for a group of refugee families on the British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus, the Court of Appeal has held.

The six claimants were among 75 individuals who washed ashore on the military base in 1998 after the boat they were travelling in foundered off the Cypriot coast. While the Home Secretary accepted the claimants were refugees within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention, she disputed their right to move to the UK on the basis they had no strong ties to the UK and there were ‘no reasons for treating them exceptionally’. Moreover, she argued, neither the 1951 Convention nor the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights applied to military bases. She said the Home Office had made arrangements with the Republic of Cyprus for the families.

The claimants countered that the 1951 Convention did apply to the military base in Cyprus, therefore the families should be allowed to move to the UK.

The court unanimously held, in R (Bashir & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 397, that the Refugee Convention applies directly to the military base by virtue of the earlier extension of the Refugee Convention to the colony of Cyprus in 1957. It ordered the Home Secretary to urgently reconsider the refusal of entry.

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Justice Irwin said: ‘The secretary of state must take the decision once more but on the basis that the Refugee Convention applies directly and the UK owes direct obligations to the claimants by operation of public international law.

‘In my judgment the outcome of that decision must take into account the history but cannot be determined by this court merely by re-analysing the historic evidence.’

Tessa Gregory, partner at Leigh Day, who acted for the refugees, said: ‘Our clients have been in legal limbo for 18 years living in wholly unacceptable conditions on a British military base. We hope the UK government will not seek to pursue further costly legal proceedings and will face up to its responsibilities.’

Issue: 7748 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll