Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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