Human rights / Arbitrary arrest and detention
- Case Law 2
|
The Queen on the application of:1) Hemmati; 2)Khalili;3) Abdulkadir; 4) Mohammed (Appellants) - and - The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
and Between The Queen on the application of SS (Respondent) -and- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)
The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles"). 4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
R (on the application of Al Rawi & Others) v. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Another
Hearing dates: 24-26 July 2006. 12 October 2006 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Mental health - Pre-trial detention | Countries: Jordan - Libya - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
