*/
Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Afghan national applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. That application was refused and he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT). Permission to appeal to the defendant Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) was refused by both the FTT and the UT. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review of the UT's decision. The High Court refused to grant a stay on his removal pending consideration of that claim and he was removed to Afghanistan. Subsequently, the claimant's judicial review application was granted. The claimant applied for an order that the interested party Secretary of State should take all reasonable steps to secure his return to the UK (the order). The Administrative Court ruled that that application had been premature. The court would not make the order at the present time, but would give the claimant permission to restore the instant application if: (i) the UT found that there had been an error of law and that it would be desirable to admit further evidence from the claimant; or (ii) the UT found merit in the claimant's argument that his right of appeal as a matter of law would be jeopardised by his absence from the UK.
Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Afghan national applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. That application was refused and he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT). Permission to appeal to the defendant Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) was refused by both the FTT and the UT. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review of the UT's decision. The High Court refused to grant a stay on his removal pending consideration of that claim and he was removed to Afghanistan. Subsequently, the claimant's judicial review application was granted. The claimant applied for an order that the interested party Secretary of State should take all reasonable steps to secure his return to the UK (the order). The Administrative Court ruled that that application had been premature. The court would not make the order at the present time, but would give the claimant permission to restore the instant application if: (i) the UT found that there had been an error of law and that it would be desirable to admit further evidence from the claimant; or (ii) the UT found merit in the claimant's argument that his right of appeal as a matter of law would be jeopardised by his absence from the UK.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
