Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
22/03/2024
| On 21 March 2024, the Court of Appeal (Underhill, Jackson and Lewis LLJ) handed down judgment in R (LND1 & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 278. Sian Reeves acted for the Appellants (the Secretaries of State) and Interested Party, led by David Blundell KC. Sian appeared alone below before Swift J. This is an important decision in relation to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”) and the interpretation of some of the eligibility conditions for relocation to the UK. The Court of Appeal held that on a proper interpretation of relevant provisions of the Immigration Rules: An Afghan national will only establish that they are eligible for relocation to the UK if they meet conditions 1 and 2 and either or both of conditions 3 or 4 of paragraph 3.6 of Appendix ARAP to the Immigration Rules. Conditions 1 and 2 contain different eligibility requirements, each of which must be met by the applicant. Condition 1 is concerned with the relationship between the individual and a relevant UK Government department. Condition 2 is concerned with a different matter, namely whether the work made a positive contribution to the UK’s military or national security objectives. Swift J erred in interpreting paragraph 3.6 of Appendix ARAP differently and that the matter need not be remitted to the Ministry of Defence for reconsideration. In these circumstances, and to the above extent, the Appellant Secretaries of State succeeded in three of their four grounds of appeal. The eligibility decision itself was quashed and remitted to the MOD for a fresh decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed the ground of appeal relating to the adequacy of reasons. The Respondents withdrew their cross appeal based on an alleged unlawful delegation of decision making by the SSHD, A link to the judgment can be found here. |
