*/
Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Afghan national applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. That application was refused and he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT). Permission to appeal to the defendant Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) was refused by both the FTT and the UT. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review of the UT's decision. The High Court refused to grant a stay on his removal pending consideration of that claim and he was removed to Afghanistan. Subsequently, the claimant's judicial review application was granted. The claimant applied for an order that the interested party Secretary of State should take all reasonable steps to secure his return to the UK (the order). The Administrative Court ruled that that application had been premature. The court would not make the order at the present time, but would give the claimant permission to restore the instant application if: (i) the UT found that there had been an error of law and that it would be desirable to admit further evidence from the claimant; or (ii) the UT found merit in the claimant's argument that his right of appeal as a matter of law would be jeopardised by his absence from the UK.
Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Afghan national applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. That application was refused and he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT). Permission to appeal to the defendant Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) was refused by both the FTT and the UT. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review of the UT's decision. The High Court refused to grant a stay on his removal pending consideration of that claim and he was removed to Afghanistan. Subsequently, the claimant's judicial review application was granted. The claimant applied for an order that the interested party Secretary of State should take all reasonable steps to secure his return to the UK (the order). The Administrative Court ruled that that application had been premature. The court would not make the order at the present time, but would give the claimant permission to restore the instant application if: (i) the UT found that there had been an error of law and that it would be desirable to admit further evidence from the claimant; or (ii) the UT found merit in the claimant's argument that his right of appeal as a matter of law would be jeopardised by his absence from the UK.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
