Sedrati, Buitrago-Lopex and Anaghatu v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MOSES |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 418 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/532/2001 CO/343/2001 |
| Date | 17 May 2001 |
[2001] EWHC 418 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MR JUSTICE MOSES
CO/532/2001
CO/360/2001
CO/343/2001
MR N BLAKE QC, MS N ATREYA, (instructed by WESLEY GRYK, LONDON SE1 7AE) appeared on behalf of the Claimant Sedrati.
MR N BLAKE QC and MS S HARRISON (instructed by FISHER MEREDITH, LONDON SW4 6TA) appeared on behalf of the Claimant Buitrago-Lopez.
MR N BLAKE QC and MR S TAGHAVI (instructed by GILL & CO, LONDON WC1X 8PQ) appeared on behalf of the Claimant Anaghatu.
MR J HOWELL QC and MR S KOVATS (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
RULING
Due to the diligence of all counsel involved, and those instructing them, an issue that is of some importance has been resolved arising out of the facilities for insuring that those in detention pending a recommendation for deportation, following a sentence of imprisonment, do not remain in detention in circumstances which infringe their rights under article 5 of the Convention. It is accepted in this case that the decision not to release the particular claimants involved should be quashed. But a point has arisen as to whether there should be a declaration that the terms of schedule 3 paragraph 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 do not create a presumption in favour of detention upon completion of a sentence of imprisonment.
At one stage during the course of consideration of the detention of these claimants, it had become apparent that officials were taking the view that there was a presumption. I am not wholly surprised having regard to the wording on paragraph 2, although it raised questions as to whether, if there was a presumption, that was compatible with article 5. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State very fairly, as soon as his mind was drawn to this point, took legal advice, received sensible legal advice, and has not persisted in taking that view. In those circumstances Mr Howell QC, on his behalf, says it is quite unnecessary for me to make the declaration.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Walumba Lumba and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
... ... th Ed p 618 “To whom directed—personal or general?”) Presumptions and R (Sedrati) v Home Secretary ... 59 Thirdly, coming more directly to the ... ...
-
R (Walumba Lumba and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...2 of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act. 55 The Court of Appeal also held at para 66 that the declaration granted by Moses J in Sedrati [2001] EWHC Admin 418 was wrong in law. I find this somewhat puzzling. The declaration stated that the terms of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 do not create a presumpt......
-
R (Vovk) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Datta) Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Secretary of State approached his task was the subject matter of a declaration and order in the case of Sedrati, Buitrago-Lopex and Anaghatu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 418 by, as he then was, Moses J on 17th May 2001. Until the decision in that case, and ......
-
K.m. For Judicial Review Of A Decision Of The Secretary Of State For The Home Department To Detain The Petitioner
...create a presumption in favour of detention upon completion of the sentence (R (Sedratti) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2001 EWHC Admin 418 per Moses J at paragraphs 1 and 4 of a very short judgment (the point was a matter of concession). The Detention Centre Rules 2001 SI 20......