Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Court of Protection Practice and Procedure Conference 2016

A comprehensive guide to best practice and current thinking

Public law and Regulation

Case reports and guidance on public law and professional regulation issues

06 SEP 2012

Hakemi & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 1967 (Admin)

Immigration - Further representations - Policy - Lawfulness

The Defendant had not unlawfully introduced a new policy that had not been publicised, and the Claimants' further representations had been lawfully resolved.

19 July 2012

Administrative Court

Burton J

(1)        The claims arise from the ‘legacy cases', which were some 50,000 outstanding immigration applications received before March 2007 that had formed an overwhelming backlog and were thus transferred to the specially constituted ‘Casework Resolution Directorate (CRD). In July 2011, the remaining 116,000 cases were transferred to a new body, the Care Assurance and Audit Unit (CAAU). Three of the relevant decisions challenged were made by the CRD, and the remaining was taken by the CAAU. Each of the four Claimants had had their asylum claims and further representations refused.

(2)        The Claimants allege that the Defendant erred in

(a)        Failing to seek Parliamentary approval for a modification of her policy applied to those considered by the CRU and later the CAAU, specifically regarding the policy that leave would be granted to those with 6 years residence;

(b)        In advising the CRD caseworkers that an applicant who has actively attempted to resolve their status in pursuing their applications will have a stronger case. 

(c)        Failing to publicise aspects of her policy and practice including: (i) a person who actively attempts to resolve their case will have a stronger case; (ii) 6 years of residence would result in a grant to leave; (iii) prospects of removal would be a relevant factor. 

(d)        Failing to consider the delay on the Defendant's own part in enforcing removal was a relevant factor;

(e)        Failing to provide the Claimants' with the opportunity for interview or representations;

(f)        Failing to provide sufficient reasons for its decision.

To read the full case summary and to view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Public Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).

To request a free trial click here and select Jordans Public Law online from the drop down menu.

Education Law Journal

Education Law Journal

Keeping you up to date with the latest developments in education law.

Available in Education Law Online
Licensing Law Reports

Licensing Law Reports

Full text reports of cases on all aspects of licensing law and practice.

More Info from £155.00
Available in Public Law and Regulation Online
Subscribe to our newsletters