BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State

Last updated

BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Decided26 November 2009
Citation(s)[2009] UKSC 7
Transcript(s) http://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0098_judgment.pdf
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingLord Hope, Lord Scott, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale and Lord Brown

BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on the 30 July 2009. The justices were Lord Hope of Craighead, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood.

Contents

Facts

The case regards BA, a Nigerian national who first entered the United Kingdom in 1988 as a visitor and was given 6 months leave to enter. He was then later given leave to remain as a student until the end of August, 1991, and then on the 25 of May 1994, he was given permanent leave to remain, as per his being married to a British citizen. On 20 May 2005, he was served with a decision by the Secretary of State that he was to be deported following his release on licence from a 10-year sentence of imprisonment for conspiracy to import class A drugs. He appealed against the asylum and immigration tribunal on human rights grounds and failed. He was served with a deportation order on 25 May 2007. On 25 June 2007 and 8 August 2007 further submissions were made on his behalf as to why he should not be deported. The Secretary of State agreed to consider his reasons for seeking revocation of the deportation order, but she declined to revoke it. Directions were then given for him to be removed from this country on 29 December 2007. [1]

Judgment

The Supreme Court so held in dismissing an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against a decision of the Court of Appeal [2] allowing the appeal of the claimants, BA, a Nigerian national, and PE, a national of Cameroon, from a decision of Blake J, sitting in the Administrative Court of the Queen's Bench Division [2008] 4 All ER 798, that the claimants had no right of appeal exercisable within the UK against the Secretary of State's refusal to revoke deportation orders made against them. Lord Roger and Lord Brown delivered concurring opinions, Lord Scott agreed and Baroness Hale delivered a dissenting opinion. [3]

Significance

The court ruled that, contrary to the opinion expressed by the Home Secretary in refusing to rescind the plaintiff's deportation order, an appeal of a refusal to revoke a deportation order did not have to be made from abroad. [4]

Notes

  1. 2009 Judgement [ permanent dead link ]
  2. [2009] 2 WLR 1370 (Sedley, Longmore and Lloyd LJJ)
  3. Law reports 2009 [ permanent dead link ]
  4. The Times (subscription required)


Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial functions of the House of Lords</span> Historical role of the UK House of Lords

Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond</span> British judge (born 1945)

Brenda Marjorie Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond,, is a British judge who served as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2017 until her retirement in 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead</span> British judge (born 1938)

James Arthur David Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead, is a retired Scottish judge who served as the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General, Scotland's most senior judge, and later as first Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2009 until his retirement in 2013, having previously been the Second Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. He served as Convenor of the Crossbench peers in the House of Lords from 2015 to 2019.

<i>A v Secretary of State for the Home Department</i> UK human rights case

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 56 is a UK human rights case heard before the House of Lords. It held that the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners in Belmarsh without trial under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Regina v. Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah, also known as Do v. Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 26 on appeal from [2002] EWCA Civ 1856, was a legal case in the United Kingdom. This was a joint decision, meaning two cases were heard at the same time, so the case may be cited as either of the case titles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury</span> English judge (born 1948)

David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury is an English judge. He served as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2017. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary until the House of Lords' judicial functions were transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2009, at which point he became Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales. Neuberger was appointed to the Supreme Court, as its President, in 2012. He now serves as a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and the Chair of the High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Pannick, Baron Pannick</span> British lawyer and House of Lords crossbencher

David Philip Pannick, Baron Pannick, is a British barrister and a crossbencher in the House of Lords. He practises mainly in the areas of public law and human rights. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.

Helmut Oberlander was a naturalized Canadian citizen who was a member of the Einsatzgruppen death squads of Nazi Germany in the occupied Soviet Union during World War II. Oberlander was on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's list of most wanted Nazi war criminals. Beginning in 1994, the Government of Canada made several attempts to revoke Oberlander's citizenship on the basis of his misrepresenting his involvement with Nazi war crimes.

<i>Stack v Dowden</i> Leading English property law case

Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 is a leading English property law case concerning the division of interests in family property after the breakdown of a cohabitation relationship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir</span> President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Robert John Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir, is a Scottish judge who has been President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom since January 2020. He was the principal judge in the Commercial Court in Scotland before being promoted to the Inner House of the Court of Session in 2008. He is an authority on human rights law in Scotland and elsewhere; he served as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights. He was also a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.

<i>Jones v Kaney</i> 2011 UK Supreme Court judgment

Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 is a 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on whether expert witnesses retained by a party in litigation can be sued for professional negligence in England and Wales, or whether they have the benefit of immunity from suit. The case involved a psychologist (Kaney) instructed as an expert witness in a personal injury claim, who was said to have negligently signed a statement of matters agreed with the expert instructed by the opposing side, in which she made a number of concessions that weakened the claim considerably. As a result, according to the injured claimant (Jones), he had to settle the claim for much less than he would have obtained had his expert not been careless. To succeed in the claim, he had to overturn an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had decided that preparation of a joint statement with the other side's expert was covered by immunity from suit. Kaney therefore succeeded in getting the claim struck out before trial on an application heard by Mr Justice Blake in the High Court of Justice. The judge issued a certificate allowing the claimant to "leapfrog" the Court of Appeal and go straight to the Supreme Court to appeal against his decision.

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal is a specialist, independent tribunal established in New Zealand under the Immigration Act 2009 with jurisdiction to hear appeals and applications regarding residence class visas, deportation, and claims to be recognised as a refugee or as a protected person. The Tribunal is administered by the Ministry of Justice and is chaired by a District Court Judge, appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General.

<i>R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 68 is a United Kingdom constitutional law and labour law case that found the conduct of the Department for Work and Pensions "workfare" policy was unlawful. Caitlin Reilly, an unemployed geology graduate, and Jamieson Wilson, an unemployed driver, challenged the Jobcentre policy of making the unemployed work for private companies to get unemployment income. The outcome of the case affects over 3,000 claimants and entails around £130m unpaid benefits.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2015 as of 8 August. So far 57 cases have been decided and these are ordered by neutral citation.

<i>R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union</i> Constitutional decision of Supreme Court

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so. Two days later, the government responded by bringing to Parliament the European Union Act 2017 for first reading in the House of Commons on 26 January 2017. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or "Miller I".

<i>Huang v Home Secretary</i>

Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Begum v Home Secretary</i> 2021 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case

Begum v Home Secretary [2021] UKSC 7 is the short name of three closely connected proceedings considered together in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, R v Special Immigration Appeals Commission; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department, concerning Shamima Begum, a woman born in the United Kingdom who at the age of 15 travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Her intention to return to England in 2019 resulted in a public debate about the handling of returning jihadists.