02075693035 info@ergensharif.co.uk
Afghanistan _ Country Condition Update
 

FS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1858 (QB) (19 July 2011): The claimant was an asylum seeker from Afghanistan, who arrived in the UK on 17 September 1999.  Six years later he was detained by immigration authorities for a period of 24 days (from November 2005 to December 2005).  His claim for asylum was still being processed by this time.  The claimant pursued claims for damages for false imprisonment over his detention and misfeasance in public office arising out of the way his claim for asylum was handled.  Both claims failed.

 In 1999, when the claimant arrived in the UK, the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan.  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) had a policy of granting Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) for four years to Afghan asylum seekers if their claims for asylum failed.  In January 2001 the SSHD decided to prioritise new asylum claims, such that previous claims (including that of the claimant’s from 1999) were put on hold.  In April 2002 the policy of granting ELR for four years was withdrawn by the SSHD. 

Had the claimant’s application for asylum been dealt with before 2002 he would probably have been granted ELR.  However, following the changes in policy, the claimant was interviewed by the SSHD’s immigration officers in 2004, when his asylum claim was refused.  The claimant applied for discretionary leave to remain in the UK, based on his employment, but this was refused in 2005.  The claimant’s case was certified under section 96(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which meant he had no further right of appeal and could be removed from the UK.

In November 2005, the claimant was reporting to the immigration when he was detained by those authorities.  The claimant was served removal directions for Afghanistan in December 2005 and bail was refused.  Once the claimant made applications for judicial review of the decisions to remove him, however, he was released from detention.

In terms of false imprisonment, the key issue was whether the claimant was arrested or detained.  Different kinds of regulation apply to these different acts.  In this case, the immigration judge held that the claimant was detained in accordance with the Immigration Act 1971, such that legislation governing arrests was inapplicable.  The claimant was given reasons for his detention in accordance with regulations. 

On the issue of misfeasance in public office (a tort, defined in Three Rivers District Council v Governor &Company of the Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2AC1), the claimant argued that as soon as the SSHD was informed that the claimant was in a relationship with a British national in November 2005, it would have been apparent that the claimant’s deportation would not be imminent, and that to detain him was therefore in breach of the Hardial Singh principles (set out by Lord Dyson in R (I) v SSHD [2002] EWCA Civ 88, at paragraph 46). 

The principles state that deportees may only be detained so long as it does not become apparent that the SSHD will not be able to ‘effect deportation within a reasonable period’.  On this basis, the SSHD’s policies might well have been unfair to the claimant, but it could not be shown that the SSHD knowingly introduced a policy which s/he knew to be unlawful.  The claim failed.

 

GS (Article 15 (c): indiscriminate violence) Afghanistan CG [2009] UKAIT 00044:
 
 Hundreds of Afghans in the UK face deportation as the judgement in the above country guidance case rules that Afghanistan is not in a state of war. Three senior Judges ruled that  

‘There is not in Afghanistan such a high level of indiscriminate violence that substantial grounds exist for believing that a civilian would, solely by being present there, face a real risk which threatens the civilian’s liffe or person, such as to entitle that person to the grant of humanitarian protection, pursuant to article 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive’.  

The judges continued to state:  

"Nobody is suggesting that the situation in Afghanistan is anything but a very long way short of ideal but... the numbers of civilians killed by indiscriminate violence turns out to be a great deal less than might otherwise have been expected."  

The judgement effectively means that although there are casualties, the figures are not high enough to yield protection pursuant to the Directive. The earlier country guidance case of GS (Existence of internal armed conflict) Afghanistan CG [2009] UKAIT 00010 is no longer to be relied upon.  

23/10/09

 

 

© 2009 Ergen&Sharif Immigration Specialists. All rights reserved.   Sitemap   |   Disclaimer Web Design by WebCreation UK
Ergen&Sharif Immigration Specialists is the trading name of Ergen Sharif Ltd and is registered in England & Wales under Company Registration No: 06693581.
The Registered Office and address for service is Regent House Business Centre, 24-25 Nutford Place, London, W1H 5YN. Authorised by the OISC Ref. No. F200800148