Skip to main content

Undesirable, Unreturnable and no effective remedy

York, Sheona (2016) Undesirable, Unreturnable and no effective remedy. In: Undesirable and Unreturnable: POlicy challenges around excluded asylum-seekers and other migrants suspected of serious criminality but who cannot be rmoved, 25-26 January 2016, School of Advanced Study, London. (Unpublished)

PDF (Undesirable, Unreturnable and no effective remedy - paper submitted to the Undesirable and Unreturnable conference, School of Advanced Study, London, January 2016) - Publisher pdf

CC0
To the extent possible under law, copyright and related or neighboring rights on this work have been waived.
Download (2MB) Preview
[img]
Preview

Abstract

The Immigration Act 2014’s measures respecting foreign criminals and those unlawfully present on UK territory represent a fundamental attack on the rule of law. The Act declares that the deportation of foreign criminals 'is' in the public interest, presaging revocations of leave and new refusals for those previously granted leave after their criminal convictions. Such would arguably amount to the imposition of retrospective criminal penalties in breach of art 7 ECHR and/or denial of a fair trial in breach of art 6 ECHR. Section 17 removes appeal rights against deportation for foreigners convicted (or suspected) of criminal conduct until they have left the UK, unless they would face ‘a real risk of serious irreversible harm’. However, many migrants, lawfully or unlawfully present, cannot obtain national documents and are therefore unable to leave the UK. Unless removal is ‘simply impossible’ (the 'Hale threshold’, as set out in Khadir) such people will remain indefinitely on temporary admission. To be unable to leave the country to exercise a right of appeal accessible only from outside the UK amounts to a denial of an effective remedy under art 13 ECHR. Similarly, to be unable to leave the UK but have no access to accommodation, support, work, benefits or healthcare unless meeting legally-demanding tests must be challengeable. The exclusion of immigration law from the scope of Arts 6 and 7, confirmed by Maaouia and barely challenged since, rested on an acceptance that immigration control is a purely administrative matter, amenable only to public law challenge: and on there being other remedies for 94bthose facing expulsion. Both the changing legal character of immigration control, and the diminishing access to other remedies, demand a detailed review of that judgment.

Item Type: Conference or workshop item (Paper)
Uncontrolled keywords: foreign criminals retrospective penalties articles 6 and 7 ECHR double jeopardy res judicata hostile environment
Subjects: K Law > KD England and Wales
Divisions: Faculties > Social Sciences > Kent Law School
Depositing User: Sheona York
Date Deposited: 18 Feb 2016 13:33 UTC
Last Modified: 29 May 2019 17:01 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/54233 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
  • Depositors only (login required):

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year