Search for: "HARDIAL SINGH"
Results 1 - 20
of 22
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2012, 2:28 am
Under the so-called ‘Hardial Singh’ principles, the Secretary of State must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose, and the deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances.” Full story UK Human Rights Blog, 9th February 2012 Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 4:05 am
And in Lumba Lord Dyson observed at para 119 that there was a close analogy between the Hardial Singh principles and the article 5 requirement that detention for the purposes of deportation must not be of excessive duration (see our post in this case) Applying this reasoning to Othman’s case, Mitting J could “not conceive of circumstances - arising in a SIAC case in which detention might be unlawful on Hardial Singh principles, but… [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 10:45 pm
Maurice Kay LJ considered that the case-law showed two distinct approaches: the application of the Hardial Singh principles and the causation/materiality test. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:43 am
It is for a court of first instance to decide whether Mr Lumba’s detention for almost 56 months was in breach of the Hardial Singh principles. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:29 am
The court remitted to the High Court the question whether Mr Lumba was detained for longer than a reasonable period in breach of the Hardial Singh principles. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 2:00 am
In regards to the proportionality argument, Lord Clarke stated that, in this case, the absence of a specified time limit for detention does not infringe the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, Ex P Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 4:17 am
A person can only be detained pending deportation if that detention is lawful under the well-known (to practitioners) Hardial Singh principles, which arise from a 1984 case of the same name. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 4:44 am
Applying Hardial Singh and Lumba [2011] UKSC 12, doing so would exceed the implied limits on the exercise of administrative power to detain for immigration purposes. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 6:46 am
Applying Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and Lumba [2011] UKSC 12, detaining B would exceed the implied limits on the exercise of administrative power to detain for immigration purposes. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 10:07 am
It was ruled that under the Hardial Singh principles, this was lawful (paragraph 34). [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 10:01 pm
The basic principle is that detention can only be for the period reasonably necessary for the machinery of deportation or removal to be carried out (R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704). [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 2:15 am
The appellant was diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder and claimed her immigration detention was contrary to the Hardial Singh principles and contrary to the Secretary of State’s policy in respect of detaining persons suffering with mental illness. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 12:00 am
Fourthly, there was a side debate about whether the summary of the Hardial Singh principles in R (I) v SSHD [2002] EWCA Civ 888 by Dyson LJ (as he then was) was accurate. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 10:00 pm
This encapsulates what Lord Phillips refers to as the “conceptual difficulty” inherent in laying the wider interpretation on the Hardial Singh test for lawfulness. [read post]
7 Apr 2012, 12:58 pm
Therefore, his continued detention became unlawful from that point onwards under the four “Hardial Singh” principles. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 10:56 pm
Such arbitrariness is usually avoided through compliance with what have become known as the “Hardial Singh” principles (taken from the judgment of Woolf J in R v Governor o Durham Prison, ex p Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704) – common law requirements that the detention must only be for the purpose of deportation, and that it must only be for a reasonable period in the circumstances. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 6:46 am
The court refused to accept nine first instance authorities invoked by the Home Office to make the counter-point that the conventional approach to bail allows for bail conditions to be imposed as an alternative to detention after the actual detention is rendered unlawful applying Hardial Singh. [read post]
8 Aug 2016, 6:00 am
Further he found that provided the SSHD applied the Hardial Singh principals, where a reasonableness test is applied to detention, then there was no need for specific custody time limits. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 8:35 am
The appellant was diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder and claimed her immigration detention was contrary to the Hardial Singh principles and contrary to the Secretary of State’s policy in respect of detaining persons suffering with mental illness. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 5:37 am
The High Court refused permission for O’s claim to proceed because her detention did not infringe the Hardial Singh principles and there was a high risk of absconding and a significant risk of reoffending. [read post]
