Hameed & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 456 (18 March 2019)

Hameed & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 456 (18 March 2019)

The High Court judge erred in law by holding that the unlawfulness of the 2005 Rules rendered all tribunal decisions and detentions under those rules unlawful, without proper case-specific analysis. The lawfulness of detention and procedural fairness must be determined on the facts of each case, not presumed from the invalidity of the rules. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a fresh hearing.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 456
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Abdul Hameed; Claimant / Respondent: Rashida Jabeen; Defendant / Appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Detention, Asylum Procedure, Detained Fast Track (dft), Ultra Vires Rules, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Unlawful Detention Asylum Procedure Detained Fast Track (dft) Ultra Vires Rules Procedural Fairness +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Hameed

Claimant / Respondent

Rashida Jabeen

Claimant / Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Asylum and Immigration (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 were unlawful and systemically unfair
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' detention under the DFT process was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether tribunal decisions made under the 2005 Rules were necessarily unlawful due to the rules' invalidity

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court judge erred in law by holding that the unlawfulness of the 2005 Rules rendered all tribunal decisions and detentions under those rules unlawful, without proper case-specific analysis. The lawfulness of detention and procedural fairness must be determined on the facts of each case, not presumed from the invalidity of the rules. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a fresh hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing.

Orders

  • Order of High Court set aside
  • Judicial review claims remitted to Administrative Court for fresh hearing