| |
Immigration, asylum and international
law
Manjit S. Gill QC is a leading immigration and human
rights silk who has conducted many of the landmark immigration cases,
often involving detailed analysis of international law. He has advised
extensively on all aspects of immigration including business, family,
and EU related immigration issues. Just some of his more recent
cases include: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex
parte Gashi [1999] Imm AR 415 (CA): test case which prevented the
removal of all Kosovan refugees to Germany; R v. Secretary of State
ex p Adan, Subaskaran, Aitseguer [1999] 3 WLR 1274 (CA): whether
persecution by non-state agents of persecution falls within the
Refugee Convention; Montoya v. Secretary of State [2002] INLR 399
(CA): private landowners as ‘particular social group’
– right to land ownership – right to work – persecution
of landowners in Columbia; R v. Secretary of State ex p Manjit Kaur
[2001] All ER (EC) 308 European Court of Justice (meaning of EU
citizenship; effect in international law of UK’s Declarations
on Nationality ; position of British Overseas Citizens); Kariharan
and otrs v. Secretary of State [2002] 3 WLR 1783 (CA): whether human
rights appeals could be made against removal directions; Krotov
v. Secretary of State (2004) 1 WLR 1825 (CA): law of internal armed
conflict – norms of basic rules of human conduct in international
law – atrocities in Chechnya – conscientious objection
to military service; Ullah and Do v. Secretary of State (2004) 2
AC 323 (HL): extent to which art 9, right to religion, engaged in
removal cases – extra-territorial application of ECHR; P and
M v Secretary of State [2004] EWCA Civ 1640: female genital mutilation – domestic violence - persecution on grounds of gender; Hoxha
and B v Secretary of State (2005) 1 WLR 1063 (HL): scope of art
1C(5) of Refugee Convention – victims of atrocious past persecution
– rape as a weapon of war; W and X (China) v Secretary of
State [2006] All ER (D) 97 (Nov); [2006] EWCA Civ 1494 (EU law –
right of free movement derived from child’s right of residence
under art 18 EC Treaty; effect of illegal employment); AA (Afghanistan)
v Secretary of State [2007] EWCA Civ 12 - on the definition of unaccompanied
asylum seeking children; Januzi v Secretary of State; Hamid, Gaafar,
Mohamed v Secretary of State [2006] 2 AC 426 (HL) (Darfur –
racial persecution of minority by their own state – concept
of state protection – meaning of internal relocation); H,G
and M v Secretary of State [2007] EWCA Civ 297 (Court of Appeal
holds that non Arab Darfuris cannot be safely relocated to Khartoum).
Terrorism, crime, right to liberty, fair trial, inquests, international
law etc
In these fields, he has conducted some high profile
'terrorist' trials and national security litigation ranging from
the Conspiracy to Murder the Indian Prime Minister in 1985 (R v
Ranuana and Gill [1989] Crim. L. R. 358 (CA) (on entrapment) to
the House of Lords’ decision in Dec 2004 on the indefinite
detention without trial of suspected terrorists (A,X,Y v. Secretary
of State (2005) 2 AC 68; also A and others v. Secretary of State
(2005) 1 WLR 414 (CA) reliance on evidence obtained by torture abroad).
He was one of the lead counsel in the challenge to the control orders
under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005: see JJ and others v
Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 1623 Admin (Sullivan J) and [2006]
3 WLR 866 (CA) concerning indefinite house arrest without a criminal
trial. He has also appeared in litigation on the scope of the Crown’s
obligations to protect its citizens in trials and detention abroad
and the extra-territorial protection of the human rights of British
Muslim men detained in Yemen on 'terrorist' charges: R v. Secretary
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p Butt [1999] 116
International Law Rep 607 (CA): review of prerogative powers –
protection of British Muslims in Yemen – unfair criminal trial
abroad - common law obligations to provide protection – legitimate
expectation of assistance. This case was a fore-runner of the arguments
advanced in the more recent case of Feroz Abbasi which concerned
the government’s non-assistance of a British national detained
at Guantanomo Bay. He has also represented proscribed organisations,
including as a Special Advocate, and has regularly appeared before
the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in national security
cases including cases challenging the removal under memoranda of
understanding of terrorist suspects to regimes where they face torture.
He has appeared in litigation on sentencing of mentally disordered
persons some specialist criminal appeal such as mental health R
v. Galfetti [2002] EWCA Crim 1916 (CA): effect on sentencing of
delay in providing hospital bed for mentally disordered defendant,
art 6 ECHR; exposure of lacuna in rights of appeal against sentence;
R(Yaseetharan) v. Immigration Officer, Stansted Airport [2003] Imm
AR 62: access to legal advice during interviews; Nadarajah and Amirthanathan
v. Secretary of State [2003] EWCA Civ 1768 (Lord Phillips MR): detention
pursuant to unpublished policy to detain; scope of the right to
liberty under art 5 ECHR; Challender and Morris v. Legal Service
Commission (2004) ACD 57: funding for inquests - whether state’s
procedural duty to investigate deaths under art 2 ECHR is limited
to deaths by caused force or by state agents. He has also advised
on death penalty cases in other jurisdictions.
General public law
He has appeared in some of the leading cases which
have developed public law concepts: e.g. R(Zeqiri) v. Secretary
of State [2002] Imm AR 296 WLR (House of Lords): legitimate expectation
– meaning of ‘test case’. R (Hashmi) v. Secretary
of State [2002] INLR 377 (CA): circumstances in which a Member of
Parliament may be said to have acted on behalf of the claimant when
liasing with Govt depts.; R(Atabaky) v. Special Adjudicator [2002]
EWCA Civ 234: whether court may use discretion to refuse relief
where success on judicial review would lead to Applicant utilising
statutory appeal; R (Anufrijeva) v. Secretary of State for Social
Security [2002] EWCA Civ 399 (CA): whether an uncommunicated decision
by a public body has binding effect on public law; E and R v. Secretary
of State (2004) QB 1044 (CA): statutory appeal limited to errors
of law - circumstances in which an error of fact gives rise to an
error of law – role of fresh evidence in identifying error
– this case has had a profound effect on rest of civil law.
Discrimination and human rights
A,X,Y v. Secretary of State (2005) 2 AC 68: discriminatory denial
to foreign nationals of the right to liberty; R (Carson and Reynolds)
v. Secretary of State for Works and Pensions (2005) 2 WLR 1369 (HL):
age discrimination in social security rates; right to property,
art 1 of Protocol 1 of ECHR, arts 8 and 14; R(Baiai, Trczinska,
Bigoku, Agolli & Tilki) v SSHD [2007] 1 WLR 693 [2007] EWCA
Civ 478 - successful challenge to laws on ‘sham’ marriages
requiring foreigners to get the Home’s Secretary’s permission
before they marrying in the UK judged to breach art 12 and 14 of
the ECHR. Many of the other cases mentioned on this page involve
some form of human rights arguments.
Regulatory Law
He has advised and represented various health care
and other professionals on regulatory/disciplinary matters. In particular,
he advanced novel arguments on the incompatibility with the ECHR
of the Law Society’s intervention procedure: see Sritharan
v Law Society [2005] 4 All ER 1105 (CA) and [2004] EWHC 2932 Ch.
Local government
His work has involved a wide range including environmental
law, advising on the closure and supervision of registered homes,
social services issues (particularly health related), privacy issues,
property, planning and finance related matters. Reported cases include:
R v. LB of Lambeth ex p Sarhangi [1999] LGR 641: whether released
prisoner who has no leave to remain in the UK is entitled to support
under the National Assistance Act 1948; R v. Leicester City Council
ex p Bhika; O v. London Borough of Wandsworth [2000] 1 WLR 2539
(CA): whether illegal conduct is a bar to receipt of community care
services; R v LB of Haringey and Secretary of State for Social Security
ex p Ben-Abdelaziz [2001] WLR 1485 (CA) (Lord Phillips MR): whether
right to damages against local authority for failure to carry out
housing duties before 2 October 2000; Kaya v LB of Haringey [2001]
WLR (CA): housing rights of nationals of signatory states to European
Convention on Social and Medical Assistance; D and H v. Secretary
of State [2004] EWHC 1097 (Admin): effect of the accession of East
European States to EU Treaty on housing rights.
Social welfare law
See under local government above. See also R v Secretary of State
for Social Security, ex parte Vijeikis, Okito and Zaheer [1998]
COD 49, QBD and CA, (vires of Social Security (Persons from Abroad)
Misc Amendments Regns 1996); R (Reynolds) v. Secretary of State
for Works and Pensions (2005) 2 WLR 1369 (HL) under discrimination
above.
Education law
R v Board of Governors of the London Oratory School, ex parte
R [1989] Fam Law 97: first time that an English court rules that
natural justice applies in school expulsions; R v Inner London Education
Authority, ex parte Ali and Murshid [1990] 2 Admin LR 822: whether
duty to provide education is a target duty or an absolute duty;
R v Board of Governors of Stoke Newington School, ex parte M [1994]
ELR 131:bias in education school appeal committee; R v London Borough
of Lambeth, ex parte G [1994] ELR 207: challenge to vires of education
grants policy; R v Board of Governors of Sheffield Hallam University,
ex parte R [1995] ELR 267: warnings; expulsion from university.
Mental Health
e.g. in R v Galfetti, [2002] EWCA Crim 1916 (CA) he advanced
arguments about the compatibility of the sentencing regime for mentally
disordered individuals with the Human Rights Act 1998. He has also
advised local authorities and social workers on their responsibilities
in these fields.
Employment law
He has extensive experience of appearing before Employment
Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal as well as advising
on the full range of employment related issues e.g. HSBC Bank v.
Madden; Post Office v. Foley [2001] 1 All ER 550 (CA): the leading
English authority on the test of unreasonableness in dismissal cases. Sidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology [2001] ICR 167 (CA): whether
dismissal for acts ‘in the course of employment’ –
discrimination.
What others say
He is regularly highly recommended in various legal directories
(including the Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession and the 'Legal
500').
Publications etc
He is the editor of Immigration and Nationality Law Reports.
Languages: Punjabi, UrduLegal Appointments
In 1992 he was appointed by the Attorney-General as Junior Counsel
to the Crown in Common Law matters. In 1998 the Attorney-General
appointed him under s.6 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission
Act 1997 as one of the very first Special Advocates authorised to
represent the interests of appellants before the Commission (National
Security cases).
Background Information
In the 1980s he was very active in the Society of Black Lawyers
and involved in a number of initiatives to counter race discrimination
in the legal profession.
In the mid 1990s he was heavily involved in setting up the Discrimination
Law Association. He is a member of the Bar Council's Immigration
Practitioners Accreditation Board and has previously assisted the
Bar Council's Committee dealing with direct access to the Bar.
He has spoken regularly at international conferences (e.g. Brussels
conference organised by the European Policy Centre on the Common
Basic Principles on Integration, as adopted by the EU Justice and
Home Affairs Ministers in November 2004; speech to the Indian Supreme
Court Bar Association in New Delhi 2005 etc), given seminars and
training sessions in his various areas of practice, appeared before
UN human rights committees, carried out fact finding missions abroad
(e.g. to the West Bank to assess the operation of alternative legal
systems of communities under occupation) and attended many UN conferences
(including the UN World Conference on Racism 2001 where he addressed
various meetings on issues of cultural diversity) and worked closely
with other NGOs on diversity issues. He continues to be involved
in various human rights organisations on a pro bono basis.
|
|
