Matrix Judgments & Commentary
Matrix’s Legal Support Service produce summaries of cases that Matrix members are involved in, which you can find below. You can browse these through the search function on the right.
X & Ors v Z & Ors (C-199/12 to C-201/12)
Directive 2004/83/EC supports the finding that homosexuals targeted by criminal laws must be regarded as forming a particular social group. A term of imprisonment that sanctions homosexual acts must be regarded as being a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment, and thus an act of persecution. It was unnecessary to distinguish acts that interfered with the core areas of the expression of sexual orientation from acts which do not affect those areas.
CF & Ors v The Security Service & Ors  EWHC 3402 (QB)
Whether a closed material application could be made. Held: The Court could make a declaration before disclosure had been given and without completing a public interest immunity exercise. Following the Justice and Security Act 2013, s 6(1) a closed material application could be made to the court
Elosta v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors  EWHC 3397 (QB)
Whether a person detained for examination under the Terrorism Act 2000, Sch 7 was entitled to have a solicitor present to advise them during the interview. The claimant had the right to have a solicitor present and therefore the questioning of him was unlawful. However, this did not make his detention unlawful under ECHR, art 5(1)(b).
Al Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSIAC 66/2008
The SSHD made an order depriving the appellant of his British citizenship. The appellant appealed against that decision. Before the matter could proceed to a full appeal, three preliminary issues were to be decided: • Did the deprivation order render the appellant stateless? • Is the SSHD required to provide a minimum level of disclosure […]
SH (Iran) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1469
The Court was required to determine whether there was an obligation on the respondent to conclude cases falling within the “legacy programme” either by the grant of leave to remain or by effecting the removal of the applicant from the UK. Held: dismissing the applications, the “legacy” scheme placed no new obligations on the respondent.