Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
SHU SHIN LUH (instructed by WILSON SOLICITORS) for the CLAIMANT BILAL RAWAT (instructed by GOVERNMENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT) for the DEFENDANT Hearing dates: 8 February 2017 ____________________
Although the email does not say so in terms, I infer from it that a decision had already been taken that any Reasonable Grounds decision would await the Claimant's Asylum Interview. There is no explanation before me of the reasons for this decision.
There is nothing in this iteration of the guidance either that rendered the Claimant's detention unlawful. Chapter 55b simply redirects attention to the Frontline Staff Guidance.
Again, the inference that is to be drawn from this, is that the Competent Authority Guidance makes no assumption that referral to the NRM requires or gives rise to any presumption that immigration detention will end. Rather, it is clear that � consistent with the other guidance already referred to � the presumption of release from immigration detention arises only once a positive reasonable grounds decision has been taken.
(2) Did the Claimant's detention become unlawful at some point after 31 August 2016?
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.