Immigration - 1970- 1979

These cases are extracted from a very large database. The entries on that database are now being published individually to the main swarb.co.uk website in a much improved form. As cases are published here, the entry here will be replaced by a link to the same case in that improved form on swarb.co.uk. In addition the swarb.co.uk site includes very substantial numbers of cases after 2000. Please take the time to look.  

This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 06 June 2013. These case are being transferred one by one to the main swarb.co.uk site which presents them better, with links to full text where we have it, and much improved cross referencing.

In re Abdul Manan [1971] 1 WLR 859
1971 CA Lord Denning MR	Immigration	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The applicant was a Pakistani seaman who had deserted from his ship and his presence in the UK was unlawful under the 1962 Act. He nevertheless claimed to be entitled to enter and remain as a person who had been ordinarily resident here for two years. Held: The court rejected his claim: "The point turns on the meaning of 'ordinarily resident' in these statutes. If this were an income tax case he would, I expect, be held to be ordinarily resident here. But it is not an income tax case. It is an immigration case. In these statutes 'ordinarily resident' means lawfully ordinarily resident here. The word 'lawfully' is often read into a statute: see, for instance, Adlam v Law Society [1968] 1 WLR 6. It should be read into these statutes."
	Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962

Regina -v- Governor of Richmond Remand Centre, Ex Parte Asghar [1971] 1 WLR 129
1971 QBD Lord Parker LCJ	Immigration, Torts - Other
	The Secretary of State had detained two persons who were awaiting removal with the object that they should testify in a pending criminal trial. Lord Parker J rejected the suggestion that the detention could be justified as reasonable in these circumstances, stating: "it does seem to me that while a reasonable time is contemplated between the giving of the directions and the final removal, that is a reasonable time necessary to effect the physical removal". He considered the length of time for which the plaintiff had been detained after release from prison but pending deportation saying: "even if . . valid directions were given, the question remains whether, persuant to paragraph 4(1), the applicants continued thereafter, that is after the directions, to be held pending removal in pursuance of such directions. It quite clearly contemplates, of course, that there will be some interval of time between the giving of the directions and their implementation, and for that period of time there is authority to detain. But when one turns to the facts of this case, the reality of the position is that the applicants were being detained pending the trial at the Central Criminal Court at which they were required to give evidence. Accordingly on that second ground I think that detention was not justified. Mr Slynn has argued very forcibly that of course the period contemplated that may elapse between the giving of the directions and the actual removal must be a reasonable period. He says here that in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the Secretary of State to require the detention of these two men pending the completion of the trial at the Central Criminal Court. Much as I wish I could accede to that argument, it does seem to me that while a reasonable time is contemplated between the giving of the directions and the final removal, that is a reasonable time necessary to effect the physical removal, the truth of the matter is that the Home Office naturally desires to do nothing which will interfere with the trial. One sympathises with this object, but of course it can be achieved, by giving these applicants conditional permits. There are obvious practical reasons why this course is not adopted, because as experience has shown, nothing may ever be seen of the applicants again."

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Bhagwan; HL 1972

Regina -v- Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Cheng [1973] AC 931
1973	Immigration	1 Citers

Zaman (Dependent Parent) (Pakistan) [1973] UKIAT 00001
21 Mar 1973 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Hasan and others (Dependent Parent) (India) [1975] UKIAT 00001
12 May 1975 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

In re Sital Singh Unreported, 8 July 1975
8 Jul 1975 QBD Milmo J	Immigration	Casemap
	Mtr Singh was suspected to be an illegal immigrant. The Secretary of State had authorized his removal on 24 April 1975. The matter came before the court on 8 July 1975. The applicant had been in custody since 17 March, three and a half months prior to the decision of the court. The court had been informed by counsel that a communication had been received from the Indian High Commission saying that a reply to the application for a travel document relating to the applicant would be received within the next ten days. Held: Milmo J said: "The Court is satisfied that everything that can be reasonably done by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to urge the Indian High Commission to produce a travel document has been done and is being done." In those circumstances the court said: "It may be that a case will arise when the detention awaiting deportation is excessive, and when that case does arise it will be considered. But in the judgment of this Court the present case falls far short of that mark."

Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte R P Mehta (No 1) [1976] Imm AR 38
1976 CA Lord Denning M R	Immigration
	The Court should never let a party suffer because his or her solicitors made a mistake and were a day or two late in giving notice of appeal.

Regina -v- Home Secretary, ex parte Hosenball; CA 1977

Suthendran -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1977] AC 359; [1977] Imm AR 44; [1976] 3 All ER 611
1977 HL	Litigation Practice, Immigration	Casemap

Taj Bibi -v- Entry Clearance Officer, Islamabad [1977] Imm AR 25
1977	Immigration	1 Citers

In re Saidur Rahman [1977] Imm App Rep 24
1977 QBD Collins J	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers

Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Adjudicator, ex parte Bhanji; CA 04-Apr-1977

Regina -v- Pierre Bouchereau; ECJ 27-Oct-1977

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sultan Mahmood [1981] QB 59
1978 CA Roskill LJ, Stephenson LJ, Geoffrey Lane LJ	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant appealed refusal of his writ of habeas corpus. He had been arrested pending removal to Pakistan. He said that he had been registered a British Citizen under the 1948 Act. Whilst in Pakistan he had substituted his own photograph for that of his deceased relative, and entered the UK under the assumed name, and later obtained registration as a UK citizen. He said that he remained a UK citizen until his citizenship was revoked under section 20. Held: The appeal failed. Stephenson LJ said that the "registration was a nullity". Roskill LJ: "before the provisions of section 20 can be prayed in aid, in my judgment the appellant must show that he can bring himself within subsection (1) of that section. He seeks to do so by reliance upon the fact of registration as evidenced by the certificate. If it were clear that the appellant was the Javed Iqbal originally named and identified in the Pakistani passport and in the other relevant documents and that the Secretary of State had intended to grant registration to that person, this argument would clearly have great force because it would be to that person so named and identified that that grant would have been directed. But the evidence is that that person was dead. The Secretary of State's intention cannot have been to grant registration to the appellant for he did not know who the appellant was. He wrongly believed the appellant to be Javed Iqbal, which he was not, nor could have been, for that individual was dead. There are, I think, only three possible effects of the purported registration. First, it was a grant to Javed Iqbal. Secondly, it was a grant to the appellant. Thirdly, it was a grant to nobody but was a nullity. I have given my reasons already for rejecting the first two possibilities. There remains the third, that the purported grant was a nullity. I accept that in some cases it may be difficult to draw a dividing line in these cases between a registration which is a nullity and therefore void, as I think is the case with the present registration, in which case the alleged citizen by registration cannot bring himself within section 20(1) at all, and a registration which is only voidable, in which case the machinery of section 20 … has to be invoked … [Counsel for the Secretary of State] accepted that it was not easy to formulate a dividing line between the two classes of case. I agree, but wherever that line is drawn, I am clearly of the view that the instant case is one in which the alleged British registration was a nullity." Geoffrey Lane LJ: "It seems to me that the only question to be decided is whether the appellant ever was a citizen of the United Kingdom by registration. I find it difficult to see how he could be. He chose to assume the identity of a dead man, he took the oath of allegiance and filled in the necessary forms in the dead man's name. I find it impossible to say that in those circumstances Sultan Mahmood became a citizen of the United Kingdom any more than did Javed Iqbal. The proceedings were ineffective and section 20 never applied."

Regina -v- IAT ex parte Nathwani [1979-80] Imm AR 9
1979 QBD	Immigration	1 Citers
	The most natural reading of a ministerial statement as to immigration rules is that (in the absence of any statement to the contrary) they will apply to the decisions made until different rules are promulgates, after which decisions will be made according to the new rules.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zamir [1979] QB 688; [1979] 2 All ER 849
14 Mar 1979 QBD Lord Widgery CJ, Cumming-Bruce LJ and Neill J	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus having been detained pending his removal after failing to disclose his subsquent marriage on entry under an entry certificate. Held. The request failed on the basis that entry had been obtained by a deception.
	Immigration Act 1971

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zamir [1980] QB 378; [1980] 1 All ER 1041
21 Dec 1979 CA Stephenson, Eveleigh and Brandon, LJJ	Immigration	1 Citers
	The claimant appealed refusal of his request for a writ of habeas corpus. He had been detained for return to Pakistand. He had obtained an entry certificate, but then married, but did not disclose that on entry. Held. The failure amounted to a deception and the detention and intended removal were correct.
	Immigration Act 1971