Refworld | 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)

Title	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)
Publisher	United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
Publication Date	4 October 2018
Country	Afghanistan \| Austria \| Bulgaria \| United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland \| Islamic Republic of Iran \| Iraq
Topics	Arbitrary arrest and detention \| Prison or detention conditions
Citation / Document Symbol	[2018] EWCA Civ 2122
Cite as	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), [2018] EWCA Civ 2122, United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales), 4 October 2018, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_CA_CIV,5bc4718c4.html [accessed 26 October 2019]
Comments	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").
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.