Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
View all articles
Authors

IMMIGRATION/MARRIAGE: R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] The Times April 14

Sep 29, 2018, 17:23 PM
(Queen's Bench Division; Silber J; 10 April 2006)
Slug : r-baiai-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2006-the-times-april-14
Meta Title : IMMIGRATION/MARRIAGE: R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] The Times April 14
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 10, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86329

(Queen's Bench Division; Silber J; 10 April 2006)

The statutory regime which required people subject to immigration control to request permission before they could undergo any non-Anglican form of marriage (at a cost of £135) contravened Arts 12 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, guaranteeing the right to marry, and the right not to be discriminated against for reasons of religion or nationality. While it was legitimate to introduce legislation to prevent sham marriages, the measures in this regime were not rationally connected to the objective of preventing sham marriages, not only because Anglican marriages were exempt from the need to obtain the certificate of permission, but also because the regime contained an almost inflexible rule that there was not to be any consideration of the merits of an application, the success of such an application depending on the immigration status of the applicant.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from