The appellant (R) appealed against a decision ordering his extradition to the respondent requesting state, Lithuania. A European arrest warrant had been issued arising out of R's conviction for murder. The warrant was issued on March 21, 2011 and sent to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) on April 15, 2011. On April 23, authority was given by a SOCA officer to certify the warrant and on the same day a certificate was given. The SOCA certificate was signed but, by oversight, not dated. R w ...
|
The appellant (B), the Head of the Office of National Security in Mongolia, appealed against an order for his extradition to the respondent requesting state. A European arrest warrant issued in April 2010 asserted that B had committed offences of abduction and serious bodily injury in 2003 in Germany. B had been arrested and remanded in custody upon arrival in the United Kingdom from Mongolia on an official visit. B's case was that, under customary international law, he was entitled to diplomati ...
|
The applicant was a national of Pakistan, who had claimed asylum upon his arrival in the UK in 2009. The applicant had left Pakistan following heavy fighting in his home region, after it came under the control of the Taliban. The respondent had refused the applicant’s claim for asylum and subsequent appeals against this decision were refused by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. In this action, the applicant applied to the Court of Session for leave to appeal against these decisions, and ...
|
The petitioner was born in Zimbabwe, but had settled in South Africa, latterly gaining citizenship there. The petitioner had entered the UK in 2003 and subsequently in 2005, and had been illegally resident since 2006. In July 2010, the respondent refused the petitioner’s application for asylum, and also certified her claim as “clearly unfounded” under sections 94(2) and (3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, with the result that the petitioner was unable to ap ...
|
In this petition for judicial review, the petitioner sought review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had ruled that representations made on behalf of the petitioner did not amount to a fresh claim for asylum or subsidiary protection. The petitioner was a citizen of Iraq, who had come to the UK in March 2010, and had claimed asylum upon arrival. By August 2010, his rights of appeal against the refusal to grant asylum were exhausted, and fresh representations wer ...
|
In this reclaiming motion, the reclaimer sought to appeal against a decision of the Lord Ordinary, whereby the reclaimer’s petition for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was dismissed. In that decision, the Secretary of State had ruled that new material submitted by the reclaimer did not create a realistic prospect of success before an Immigration Judge, that the reclaimer’s asylum should be granted. It was argued by the reclaimer that ...
|
In this appeal, the reclaimer argued that his imminent removal to his country of origin unnecessarily and unlawfully interfered with his Article 8 ECHR rights to a private life. The respondent had previously declined to treat submissions on the reclaimer’s private as fresh representations for asylum, under Rule 353 of the Immigration Rules. The reclaimer submitted that the respondent’s decision letter was so muddled, both in terms of content and sequence of issues considered, ...
|
The petitioner, who claimed to have left Iran with the help of an agent in 2009, had come to the United Kingdom seeking asylum. His application for asylum was refused by the respondent in October 2009, and subsequent appeals against that decision were dismissed. In April 2010, further representations were made to the respondent on behalf of the petitioner, relying on documents which were alleged to be court citations from the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Boukan. In May 2010, the respondent mad ...
|
The petitioner was a citizen of Tanzania, who had arrived in the UK in October 2006 on a student visa. Upon expiry of that visa in 2008, the petitioner failed to leave the country and accordingly became an overstayer. The petitioner was detained at Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre on 3 February 2011, and directions for his immediate removal were served on him by the UK Border Agency. Agents for the petitioner submitted written representations to the Secretary of State, outlining that the pe ...
|
The issue in this appeal is whether a failure by the Respondent to comply with a procedural requirement in its policy relating to the detention of foreign national prisoners results in their detention being unlawful, so as to allow the detainee to advance a claim in tort for false imprisonment.Shepherd Masimba Kambadzi is a Zimbabwean national. He entered the UK lawfully, but remained here after his leave to remain expired. In 2005, he was convicted of assault and sexual assault, sentenced to on ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |