36 Bedford Row London WC1R 4JH dx: 360 LDE t: +44 (0)20 7421 8000 f: +44 (0)20 7421 8080 chambers@36bedfordrow.co.uk Chambers opening hours: 08.30 - 18.30   Mr Philip Nathan Call: 1996 Scope of Practice Philip Nathan is a member of the Agriculture and Environment ,  Public Law ,  Civil litigation  and  International Practice Groups. Experience R v SSHD ex p Shylolibavan [2009] EWHC 1067 – Owen J upheld the SSHD’s decision to refuse a fresh claim but held that the decision to detain the Claimant had been unlawful. Importantly the SSHD had sought to argue that the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in ex p SK effectively gave him the right to detain anyone who could legitimately be regarded as ‘imminently removeable’. Owen J rejected this interpretation and stated that any decision to detain had to be proportionate. Both parties have sought permission to Appeal. R v SSHD ex p ZO and Others, Times Law Reports, 28th May 2009 – On a second appeal to the Court of Appeal the Administrative Court’s narrow construction of Directive 2003/9/EC finally was overturned with the Court of Appeal agreeing a broader interpretation that this ‘Reception directive’ concerning the basic rights to be accorded to asylum seekers while their claims are being considered, also applied to those making subsequent applications for asylum, their initial claims having already been rejected. The case has particular significance as, through acknowledged administrative failings prior to March 2007, the Home Office accumulated a backlog of 450,000 such cases. Article 11 of the Directive should allow many, some of whom have been waiting for 5 or more years, the dignity to get a job and support themselves, rather than rely on the charity of friends or subsistence payments from the Home Office itself. R v SSHD ex p Balogun [2008] EWHC 3251 - Blair J upheld SSHD’s decision not to afford the Claimant a further right of appeal following a decision taken under paragraph 395C of the Rules subsequent to her original appeal having been determined some years earlier by reference to a flawed approach identified by the AIT in EO (Turkey). Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal is being sought but in the mean time that right of appeal has been granted in the context of a second claim. The claim concerns potentially thousands of others whose previous appeals were similarly flawed and it is hoped that the Court will hear the case as a matter of significant public importance. AM (Ethiopia) and Others v Entry Clearance Officer [2008] EWCA Civ 1082 – Court of Appeal upheld AIT’s finding that those applying for Entry Clearance to join a spouse in the UK are not entitled to rely on finances offered by third parties. The House of Lords Judicial committee has granted leave to appeal. R v SSHD ex p ST [2008] EWHC 107 – Though simply a refusal of Permission to apply for Judicial Review which failed due to causation issues, this case is significant for Mitting J accepting that the threshold in health removal cases arguably is reduced where the SSHD is in part responsible for the individual’s poor health, in this case through her incarceration in immigration detention. A further Judicial Review is currently stayed pending preparation of a joint psychiatric report. MK (Somalia) v ECO [2008] Imm AR 412 – Court of Appeal overturned previously reported decision of Deputy President of the AIT thereby allowing those seeking Entry Clearance to rely on disability living allowance received by the sponsor in the UK. IA (Mauritius) [2007] INLR 328 – AIT held that in certain unusual circumstances an Immigration Judge can decide properly that an appellant satisfies the requirements of a policy and if so that the appeal should be allowed because the decision to remove is not in accordance with the law. Similarly if an Immigration Judge is satisfied that a person fulfils the requirements of a policy then it may be correct to allow the appeal on human rights grounds with reference to article 8 because the removal of such a person is not necessary for the purposes of article 8(2). GD (Zimbabwe) [2007] Lawtel AC9300761 – Court of Appeal upheld Respondent’s Notice that SSHD had failed to give adequate reason for lodging her Appellant’s Notice out of time. In an asylum case, additional documents correcting clerical errors made in an order granting permission to appeal did not supersede the original order for the purposes of establishing the starting point of the time period within which an appellant's notice had to be filed under CPR PD 52 para.21.7(3). Shkembi v SSHD [2006] INLR 512 – Court of Appeal in overturning the Immigration Appeal Tribunal held that comments made by the then SSHD, Mr Blunkett, on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Start the Week’ concerning an amnesty for asylum-seeking families could be considered to be a ‘gloss’ on that policy whereby a family who didn’t fall within the precise terms of the policy might nonetheless succeed under Article 8. R v SSHD ex p Faulkner [2005] EWHC Admin 2567 – Bean J held that the SSHD’s notification of the statutory basis for detention without further reason was insufficient either to satisfy the rule in Christie v Leachinsky or Article 5 ECHR and thus held the Claimant’s detention to have been unlawful. R v SSHD ex p Maksimovic [2004] EWHC Admin 1026 – In overturning a Certificate curtailing a right of appeal under section 96 of the 2002 Act, Collins J held that a number of IAT decisions which purported to follow his starred decision in Alihajdaraj, that Human Rights could not be considered on ‘variation of leave’ appeals, had been wrongly decided. SSHD v M [2004] INLR 327 – Starred determination of Ouseley J’s IAT limiting greatly the ambit of Article 8 appeals before Immigration Adjudicators and the IAT. Permission to Appeal was granted but sadly the client withdrew his appeal in order to make a voluntary departure thereby clearing the way for those acting in Huang to take the issue to the House of Lords. SK & Others [2002] UKIAT 05613 [2002] EWCA Civ 539 – Risk on return for ethnic Serbs to Croatia as well as rather imaginative ‘starred’ interpretation of section 77(4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by Collins J in the IAT determination. S & Others [2002] INLR 416 – Court of Appeal held that the IAT had an enhanced duty to give reasons in ‘exotic’ country guidance cases. This had been the IAT’s first Country Guidance determination. Education LLB Hons University College, London. Additional Information Born: 1972 Resides: London Supporting AFC Wimbledon, dreaming of the freedom to play cricket and golf, serving customers at wife's shop, Totally Swedish, and most of all being terrorised by the five years old, Joshua and two years old, Oscar. Langauges: French, basic German and conversational Swedish BR> Langauges: French, basic German and conversational Swedish Summary CV Full CV (printable version) Contact Philip Nathan