Areas of Work
Immigration and Asylum
1 Temple Gardens is instructed in Immigration matters including:
- Asylum
- Control of Entry
- Deportation and repatriation
- Detention and Bail
- Human Rights
- Immigration Appeals
- National Security
- Removal
- SIAC
- Terrorism
Robin Tam is recommended by the Legal 500 for his work in this area.
Members of Chambers have appeared in leading immigration cases:
K v Secretary of State for the Home Department (HL) [2006] UKHL 46 - the House of Lords held that the UNHCR issued Guidelines on Internal Protection and Art.10 (d)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 2004/83 provided accurate criteria for determining whether a person was a member of a particular social group for the purposes of Art.1A(2) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (United nations) (Robin Tam QC).
A v SSHD (No 2) (HL) [2005] 3 WLR 1249 - the House of Lords broke new ground by deciding for the first time that there is a general rule that evidence that has been obtained by torture is inadmissible in United Kingdom courts, irrespective of where, by whom or on whose authority the torture was inflicted. By a 4-3 majority, the House of Lords also ruled on the approach to be taken by a court before which there is evidence allegedly obtained by torture (Ian Burnett QC and Robin Tam).
R (Iran) & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA) Times, August 19, 2005 — guidance was given on questions that had arisen since appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had been restricted under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s.101 (Robin Tam).
R (on the application of Khadir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (HL) Times, June 17, 2005 — as in the Immigration Act 1971 Sch.2 para.16 the word "pending" meant no more than "until" a failed asylum seeker whose removal was not imminent could be granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom (Robin Tam).
Mlauzi v SSHD (CA) Times, February 15, 2005 — the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had not been entitled to interfere with a factual finding of the determination of an asylum adjudicator that internal relocation had not been open to the appellant (Robin Tam).
B v SSHD (CA) Independent, February 4, 2005 — unless a State agency was implicated, the risk of an asylum seeker being raped on returning to her home country could not give rise to a well-founded fear of being persecuted within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (United Nations). However, it was possible that where there was such a risk her removal could amount to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (Robin Tam).
Gurung v SSHD (CA) Times, January 4, 2005 — where the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had not remedied the deficiency of an immigration adjudicator failing to adequately assess the appellant asylum seeker's position if he were returned to his home country, a new tribunal had to reconsider the matter (Nicholas Moss).
A v SSHD (HL) Times, December 17, 2004 — the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 was quashed and under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.4 it was declared that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s.23 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.5 and Art.14 in so far as it permitted detention of suspected international terrorists in a way that discriminated on the ground of immigration status or nationality and was disproportionate (Ian Burnett QC and Nicholas Moss).
R (on the application of Refugee Legal Centre) V SSHD (CA) Times, November 24, 2004 — the fast-track system for processing asylum claims at Harmondworth Removal Centre was not unlawful or inherently unfair (Robin Tam).
M v SSHD (CA) Times March 3 2003 — where the Court of Appeal had quashed an order recommending deportation, the Home Secretary was obliged to consider the prior reasoning of the Court of Appeal and explain why he disagreed with it (Robin Tam).