Immigration

View Team Members »
View Cases »
View What the Directories Say »

Doughty Street Chambers provides one of the largest Immigration teams at the Bar with thirteen juniors of between sixteen and two years' call. Each member of the team has a substantial immigration law practice.

Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 both consider Chambers a leader in the field of immigration. The team is dedicated to providing a high quality comprehensive service for those affected by immigration and nationality law. Representation and advice is provided at all levels of the appellate system and the courts. Team members appear frequently before the higher courts, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and the Special Immigration Appeal Commission.

Members of the team have acted in cases before the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of First Instance.

Much of the team's work concerns asylum and human rights. Advice is also provided on all other areas of immigration and at all stages from application through to litigation. Members of the team have considerable experience advising on work permit, business, naturalisation and nationality issues, as well as on visitor, student, family and settlement cases.

Team members have extensive expertise in cases concerning immigration and other fields of law. These include social security, housing, mental health, crime, employment, education, children, extradition and prisoners. Most team members also specialise in one of those other areas and share knowledge and experience with non-immigration practitioners in Chambers.

The team has considerable experience in all areas of immigration and nationality law. Over the last 15 years, members of the team have appeared in many leading immigration cases. Cases in the House of Bagdanavicius (Article 3 ECHR, state protection), Razgar (Article 8 ECHR, private life), Adan & Aitsegeur (third country: divergent interpretations of Refugee Convention), Sepet & Bulbul (asylum: refusal to perform military service), and Ross-Clunis (nationality).

Court of Appeal cases include many in the field of asylum and human rights such as AA (Zimbabwe) (whether Zimbabwean asylum-seekers at risk on return), N (Kenya) ('public good' deportation), Turgut (judicial review under ECHR Article 3), Kariharan (right to appeal more than once on human rights grounds), R (SSHD) (the "Afghan hijackers" case), Balamurali (certification of second human rights claims), Khadir (temporary admission or leave to remain for Iraqis who cannot be removed from UK), Demirkaya (relevance of previous persecution), M (persecution because of asylum claim) and Revenko (statelessness).

Court of Appeal cases in other immigration areas include Saleem (procedure rule ultra vires), Jeyeanthan (procedural failings and invalidity) and Marchon (deportation of EU nationals).

Cases before European courts include Bensaid (ECHR, mentally ill immigrant), Savas (ECJ, self-employed Turkish national), Carpenter (ECJ, expulsion of third-country wife of British self-employed man) and Ayadi (European Court of First Instance, freezing of assets of persons listed as terrorists).
Cases on immigrants' rights in other field

s include the House of Lords' case of M (immigrant's right to disability allowance) and the Court of Appeal cases of Q (denial of support to late asylum claimants), M (Article 8 ECHR positive obligations and damages), Esfandiari (Article 14 ECHR and denial of funeral payment because burial abroad) Shah (effect of sponsorship undertaking on returning resident's right to income support).

The team includes the authors of the Best Practice Guide to Asylum & Human Rights Appeals, the immigration chapter in De Smith, Woolf and Jowell's Judicial Review of Administrative Action and the chairman of Asylum Aid. Members are actively involved with the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and Housing & Immigration Group and the Foreign National Prisoners Network. Members regularly hold seminars with solicitors and others on immigration and related areas.

Team Members

Cases

Interesting cases include:

AA v SSHD [2006] INLR 401, CA. Whether dangers of a forced removal to Zimbabwe can found refugee status where there is a possibility of safe voluntary return.

R (Bagdanavicius) v SSHD [2005] 2 WLR 1309 HL, [2005] 1 All ER 263 HL, [2004] 1 WLR 1207, CA. Effect of Article 3 ECHR where ill-treatment is feared from non-state agents and whether the same test should be applied as in relation to the Refugee Convention.

Strbac v SSHD [2005] Imm AR 504, CA. Whether removal of an ethnic Serb to Croatia would be contrary to Articles 3, 8 or 14 ECHR and whether delayed decision on asylum claim led to unfairness.

Hysi v SSHD [2005] INLR 602, CA. Internal relocation to avoid persecution and whether unduly harsh to expect a person to conceal his ethnic identity.

Ayadi v Council of European Union, T-253/02, 12.7.6, European Court of First Instance. EU law permits freezing assets of persons listed as terrorist by United Nations despite lack of any judicial remedy about that listing.

N (Kenya) v SSHD [2004] INLR 612, CA. 'Public good' deportation following conviction of serious criminal offence: role of deterrence where no propensity to re-offend.

R (M) v SSHD [2004] QB 1124, CA. Positive obligations under ECHR Article 8 and damages under the Human Rights Act 1998.

R (Pepushi) v CPS [2004] INLR 638, QBD. Impact of Refugee Convention Article 31 on the prosecution of an asylum seeker who could not rely on the defence in Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 s31.

CA v SSHD [2004] INLR 453, CA. Scope of Immigration Appeal Tribunal's jurisdiction on issues of law.

R (Razgar) v SSHD [2004] 3 WLR 58, HL. ECHR Article 8 can apply to removal of mentally ill asylum-seeker to Germany.

R (Balamurali) v SSHD [2004] INLR 426, CA. Correct approach to certification of human rights claims under Immigration & Asylum Act 1999.

R (Kariharan) v SSHD [2003] QB 933, CA. Immigrants have a right of appeal on human rights grounds from successive directions for removal from the UK.

Sepet & Bulbul v SSHD [2003] 1 WLR 856, HL. Punishment for conscientious objection to military service is not persecution for a Geneva Convention reason.

R (Sivakumar) v SSHD [2003] 1 WLR 840, HL. Torture can be persecution for a Geneva Convention reason even if the torturer suspects the victim of terrorism.

R (Q) v SSHD [2004] QB 36, CA. Denial of support to late asylum claimants can be prohibited by ECHR Article 3. Claimant's knowledge and state of mind affect whether claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable.

Carpenter v SSHD [2003] QB 416, ECJ. European Community Treaty Article 49 prohibits denial of a right of residence to overstaying spouse of a self-employed British citizen who travels for business to other European Union countries.

R v SSHD ex p Adan & Aitsegeuer [2001] 2 AC 477, HL. Geneva Convention has only one true interpretation. Persecution by non-state agents is Convention persecution. France and Germany are not safe countries for a person who fears non-state persecution.

Revenko v SSHD [2001] QB 601, CA. Statelessness or inability to return to one's country of former habitual residence is insufficient to make a person a Geneva Convention refugee.

R v SSHD ex p Saleem [2001] 1 WLR 443, CA. Immigration Acts gave no power to make a rule of immigration procedure that notice of appealable decision was deemed to have been received before it was in fact received.

R v SSHD ex p Turgut [2001] 1 All ER 719, CA. Secretary of State entitled to decide that removal of failed Kurdish asylum-seekers to Turkey would not breach ECHR Article 3, and court could not determine issue of breach for itself.

Bensaid v UK [2001] 33 EHRR 205, European Court of Human Rights. Removal of mentally ill Algerian to Algeria would not breach ECHR Articles 3 and 8.

R v SSHD ex p Savas [2000] 1 WLR 1828, ECJ. Under European Community law, a Turkish national admitted to UK who had overstayed and established a business was entitled to have his application for leave to remain determined under the 1972 Immigration Rules.

R v SSHD ex p Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354, CA. Rules of immigration appeal procedure did not invalidate a defective appeal notice, but required tribunal to consider whether consequences of defect could and should be remedied.

M v SSHD [1996] 1 WLR 507, CA. A person is a Geneva Convention refugee even if the feared persecution arises from actions undertaken to enhance a claim to refugee status.

R v SSHD ex p Sivakumaran [1988] AC 958, HL. A person is a Geneva Convention refugee if objectively there is a reasonable degree of likelihood or a real risk of the persecution that the person fears.

R v SSHD ex p Bugdaycay [1987] 514, HL. Refugee status is determined by the Secretary of State and not by the courts. There is no in-country right of appeal from a refusal of leave to enter. Judicial review is available if the Secretary of State's decision is unlawful.

last updated February 2007

What the Directories say

Chambers & Partners, 2009

This set's immigration expertise continues to impress, and has indeed materially increased with the recent arrival of Judith Farbey from Tooks Chambers. The group is headed by Andrew Nicol QC, a lawyer who handles immigration matters in the context of a wider practice that embraces human rights, media law and general public law work. One source described him as "truly a star - a genuinely first-class advocate. If the case needs a silk, you can't do much better than consulting him." Commentators agree that Simon Cox deserves "absolutely top billing," pointing to his "wealth of knowledge and intellectual dexterity" as the key attributes of this "brilliant advocate." He advises private and publicly funded clients on immigration concerns. In January he won the Payir case before the ECJ, once again displaying his "ability to find creative solutions," a facility which he exhibits in numerous immigration and asylum cases in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Judith Farbey "marries her technical skills with a pragmatic approach" and is well regarded amongst solicitor sources, who describe her as "one of the leading players." Her practice takes in immigration, public law and human rights issues, and she is particularly commended for her considerable expertise in prison law and Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) cases. Mark Henderson is a respected public law counsel whose focus is mainly on immigration, asylum, and human rights issues and related European law and social welfare issues. A highly visible leading junior in immigration, he won the first declaration to be granted in asylum law - and one of very few granted under the human rights act - in R (Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD). John Walsh has developed a fine reputation through combining his fantastic knowledge of immigration and prison law with a practical approach. Sources praise him as "a safe pair of hands with a wonderful success rate." Laura Dubinsky's prior experience with North American trade union UNITE impresses sources, who feel this time spent working with first generation and undocumented immigrant workers in the USA has served her well. She is known for her "incredibly thorough approach" and the confidence she inspires in clients. Phil Haywoodspecialises in immigration and asylum cases with ECHR aspects. Sources admire his commitment to detail, suggesting that his "almost obsessive dedication to examining the weaknesses of every case is a massive strength." Peter Morris is another highly regarded immigration counsel, and draws high praise from sources for his client-focused approach.

 

Legal 500, 2008

Regarded as ' leaders in immigration law', the team of 11 juniors at Doughty Street Chambers is led by the ' stand-out' Andrew Nicol QC, who is described as ' extremely clever and measured'. A ' walking encyclopaedia of immigration knowledge', Simon Cox is praised for ' always finding creative solutions'. An ' expert in this field', in 2007 Mark Henderson notably won the Nasseri case - one of the first declarations of incompatibility to be granted in asylum law, where it was found that the Government's legislative scheme violated Article 3 of the Human Rights Act. The ' knowledgeable and realistic' John Walsh specialises in prison law related immigration matters, while Phil Haywood has strong contentious Administrative Court experience. The ' Extremely competent' Judith Farbey recently moved to Doughty Street Chambers from Tooks Chambers, and is seen by solicitors as ' technically strong'. Peter Morris and Laura Dubinsky are recognised names in the market.