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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

MARRIAGE: R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Bigoku) v Same [2007] EWCA Civ 478

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : r-baiai-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-r-bigoku-v-same-2007-ewca-civ-478
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 23, 2007, 10:40 AM
Article ID : 84967

(Court of Appeal; Waller, Buxton and Lloyd LJJ; 23 May 2007)

The Secretary of State's statutory scheme required that people subject to immigration controls or who had entered the UK illegally, who wished to marry other than according to the rites of the Anglican Church, must first obtain permission from the Home Office. The claimants complained that the scheme interfered with their right to marry under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Art 12, and, because of the exemption for Anglican marriages, discriminated against them contrary to Art 14.

The statutory scheme contravened Art 12 on the right to marry and Art 14 on the right not to be discriminated against for reasons of nationality or religion. The Secretary of State could only interfere with the exercise of Art 12 rights in cases that involved, or very likely involved, sham marriages entered into with the object of improving the immigration status of one of the parties. To be proportionate, a scheme to achieve that end would have to either properly investigate individual cases or at least show that it had come close to isolating cases that very likely fell into the target category, and must also show that marriages targeted did indeed make substantial inroads into the enforcement of immigration control. The scheme was not proportionate in that it inhibited marriages on grounds of immigration status rather than by reliable consideration of the genuineness of the marriage. The scheme unreasonably failed to pay attention to the circumstances of individual cases, and affected the Art 12 rights of substantially many more people than would be necessary to achieve the legislative purpose of preventing sham marriages.

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