A pre-action protocol letter has been sent to the Lord Chancellor questioning the lawfulness of the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. These regulations, which will come into force on 8 June 2020, are designed to respond to the roll-out in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) of a modified procedure which requires […]
The High Court has today delivered judgment in Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) v Farhad Azima, a multimillion pound fraud and conspiracy claim which featured as one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2020. In its judgment, the Court has held that Mr Azima, a prominent US businessman with many years’ experience in the […]
Detention Action are launching a fresh legal challenge against the Home Office as hundreds remain in immigration detention centres despite the increased risks of contracting Covid-19 within detention centres, and the Home Office’s inability to remove individuals to countries outside of Europe. This follows a challenge brought by Detention Action in March 2020 raising concerns about the lawfulness of continued […]
This claim involves the second defendant’s allegation that the claimant raped her and the first defendant’s allegation that the claimant sexually assaulted her. The claimant denies the allegations and brought a claim for defamation, misuse of private information and harassment in respect of social media publications by the defendants, some of which identified the claimant […]
The High Court has ruled that the procedural protections under Article 6 apply to a challenge to conditions imposed on suspected Al- Qaeda affiliate
In 2018, the Secretary of State applied for a Temporary Exclusion Order on the claimant, QX, for two years on grounds of national security. QX applied for a review of two of the obligations imposed on him after his return to the UK: having to report daily to a named police station and attending weekly mentoring sessions. QX brought legal proceedings on the basis that the reporting and mentoring requirements interfered with his Article 8 rights and engaged the fair trial requirements under Article 6.
The High Court held that the case did engage Article 6 and that the obligations were sufficiently onerous to interfere with the right to private life under Article 8. However, the judge ruled that it would be premature to definitively rule on whether Article 6 had been breached in this case as this was a question which would be better left to or at the substantive hearing.