Immigration Barristers' Blog

Paul Richmond, we have engraved your name on our home walls. We have translated your marks of success into a big celebration in our home.

I am not writing this review to make propaganda for the Richmond canter immigration barristers, but this is my real testimony for their work and assistance provided to me.

On November 2011, I have applied for a medical treatment visa at the British embassy in Amman; my application was refused with a 10- year ban imposed on any future applications with limited rights of appeal. I didn’t do any thing wrong, but I wasn’t able to prove I am innocent. I have spent days and nights seeking for some one to help on the net to give me any advice. I have emailed many lawyers, immigration barristers in London and no one responded but at last I got the miracle response from a gentleman and a real barrister from London who answered my email. It was Paul Richmond. From his email, I have discovered that this gentleman is a specialist in immigration matters like a consultant surgeon and willing to help. He asked me to send some details regarding my immigration case and I did. He replied to me and I was very delighted by the answers he provided. The way he writes look like a computer program with a simple flow chart. He paved the way for me and wrote the letter before claim for a judicial review. Today I have received a positive answer from the British embassy in Amman to collect my visa. It is the happiest day in my life because this man has proved that I am innocent, revoked a 10-year ban and gave me the chance to start my medical treatment journey. My final word is to thank Paul Richmond and his team and I advice any one with immigration issues to take the short cut and go straight to the Richmond canter immigration barristers.

In a recent report, the Home Affairs Committee has criticised the UK Border Agency's management of the processes for the enforced removal of those who are being deported from the UK.

The inquiry, launched following the death of Jimmy Mubenga on a deportation flight from the UK, found that although there were some positive aspects of the process, which is carried out on the UK Border Agency's behalf by a private security contractor, (initially G4S and, since 1 May 2011, Reliance Security) the Committee found evidence of:

• Inappropriate use of physical restraint, and the possible use of unauthorised and potentially dangerous restraint techniques.
• Weaknesses in passing on information about detainees’ medical conditions to all the relevant staff.
• Use of racist language by contractors.
• Use of excessive numbers of contactor staff.

The Committee recommends that the UK Border Agency should strengthen its procedures so that its own staff feel that they are entitled and expected to challenge any poor conduct on the part of contractors.

The Committee also rejects the practice of taking detainees to the airport as "reserves" in case another detainee is taken off a removal flight at the last minute.

To strengthen safeguards against the ill treatment of prisoners, the Committee recommends that members of the Independent Monitoring Boards for immigration removal centres—or a similar independent monitoring network—be given access to chartered removal flights.

Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v1.0.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) cannot be deported to Jordan while there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him.

The applicant, Omar Othman, is a Jordanian national who was born in 1960 near Bethlehem, then part of Jordan. He is currently detained in Long Lartin prison, Worcestershire, England. He is suspected of having links with al-Qaeda.

Mr Othman arrived in the United Kingdom in September 1993 and made a successful application for asylum, in particular on the basis that he had been detained and tortured by the Jordanian authorities in 1988 and 1990-1. He was recognised as a refugee in 1994, being granted leave to remain until June 1998.

While his subsequent application for indefinite leave to remain was pending, he was detained in October 2002 under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, and in August 2005 he was served with a notice of intention to deport him to Jordan.

Mr Othman appealed against that decision. He had been convicted in Jordan, in his absence, of involvement in two terrorist conspiracies in 1999 and 2000. Mr Othman claimed that, if deported, he would be retried, which would put him at risk of torture, lengthy pre-trial detention and a grossly unfair trial based on evidence obtained by the torture of his co-defendants.

The UK Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) dismissed his appeal, holding in particular that Mr Othman would be protected against torture and ill-treatment by the agreement negotiated between the UK and Jordan, which set out a detailed series of assurances. SIAC also found that the retrial would not be in total denial of his right to a fair trial.

The case then went to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, and in February 2009 Mr Othman lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court has now ruled that in the absence of any assurance by Jordan that the torture evidence would not be used against Mr Othman, his deportation to Jordan to be would be a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial).

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in a case involving the ‘return directive’, which establishes common standards and procedures applicable in Member States for removing illegally staying third-country nationals from their territory.

The directive provides for the adoption, in respect of any illegally staying third-country national, of a return decision which, in principle, opens a period for voluntary return, followed, if necessary, by forced removal measures.

If there is no voluntary departure, the directive requires Member States to carry out forced removal using the least coercive measures possible. It is only if there is a risk of the removal being compromised that the Member State may place the person concerned in detention, the duration of which may in any case not exceed 18 months.

The Court of Justice case concerned an Armenian national, who entered France in 2008. He was the subject of a prefectoral decision, in 2009, requiring him to leave French territory and setting a one-month deadline for voluntary departure. Following his refusal to leave France, a new return decision was adopted in June 2011, in the form of a deportation order not accompanied by a time-limit for voluntary departure. In addition, the French authorities ordered his placing in police custody and then detention for illegal staying, measures which he challenged before the French courts.

The Cour d’appel de Paris (France), which is currently hearing the dispute, asked the Court of Justice whether the 'return directive' precludes French legislation which punishes a third-country national who stays illegally in France, beyond three months, without the required documents and visas, particularly a residence permit, by a one-year sentence of imprisonment and a fine of €3,750.

The Court of Justice ruled that the ‘return directive’ precludes national legislation imposing a prison sentence on an illegally staying third-country national during the return procedure. That directive does not preclude criminal penalties being imposed in accordance with national rules and in compliance with fundamental rights on third-country nationals to whom the said procedure has been applied and who are staying illegally with no justified ground for non-return.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that migrants have the right to insist on taking legal advice before consenting to removal by the UK Border Agency [UKBA] at less than 72 hours notice.

The case of ‘Medical Justice v the Home Secretary’ related to a UK Border Agency argument that migrants who consented to removal from the UK were in effect waiving their right to legal advice.

The Court of Appeal decided that removal at less than 72 hours notice was insufficient for access to effective legal advice. In doing so it upheld important principles about an individual’s right of access to legal advice and to the courts when facing State action.

Responding to the ruling Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson said the Court of Appeal stood above the criticism by politicians and elements of the media about the courts’ intervention in immigration cases.

“This case shows the need for the courts to protect the rights of the individual, whether an immigrant or anyone else, to have access to legal advice.

The Law Society provided two witness statements to the court. The Society stated that consent has to be real and therefore properly informed by legal advice, particularly when it means that the individual is withdrawing outstanding court challenges.

The Society pointed out that it is simply unsafe for the UKBA to rely upon that consent unless it is properly informed. It is therefore in the UKBA’s own interest to ensure that consent is properly given and recorded. The failure of the UKBA to take steps to ensure that this happens, the failure to contact migrants legal representatives in these cases and the failure to keep proper records of ‘consent’ led to the court challenge.

The Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, has published a thematic inspection report of how the UK Border Agency manages foreign national prisoners.

The European Commission has asked eight Member States to ensure full compliance with EU rules on the return or removal of irregular migrants. So far Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and The Netherlands have not notified the Commission of national measures implementing the 2008 'Return' Directive. Member States were required to transpose the provisions of the Directive by 24th December 2010, and their failure to do so is jeopardizing the efficiency and fairness of the common return procedure and undermining the EU's migration policy.

FRONTEX, the EU border control agency set up in 2004, is to appoint an inspector to ensure that EU border checks respect human rights, under changes to its mandate adopted by the European Parliament.