07432 101 211

As a direct access immigration barrister practising in this field for over 17 years I have always proceeded on the basis that, subject to certain well published caveats that where a detained individual is facing detention and a JR claim is lodged then by virtue of Chapter 6t0 of the Enforcement Guidance Instructions that this would have hhe effect of stopping the removal directions being carried out.

However again in a further drastic change the SSHD has amended Chapter 60 in a quiet but dramatic manner. The change is that where the SSHD has set removal directions this has the effect of no longer cancelling the removal even if a JR is lodged unless a JR is lodged along with an injunction, and obviously the injunction is granted, from the UT or High Court.

The immediate answer to this is to lodge a JR immediately that an individual is

detained and prior to the SSHD issuing removal directions. I appreciate that JR is expensive and that it can be hard to get the money together, however without a JR being lodged as soon as they are detained, individuals could find that they are facing removal unless they can secure an injunction.

To secure an injunction can be a difficult and expensive process. It will be necessary to persuade a Judge of either the Upper Tribunal or the High Court that an injunction is required. If they grant the injunction that still does not mean that the individual will be released from detention and there may be a need for a bail application.

If the Judge refuses the injunction and this can happen as the Judge will not have very long to look at the papers then the next stop is the Court of Appeal on paper and then if permitted orally.

As you can imagine all of this is expensive and uncertain and the more refusals that are clocked up on the way the less likely of succeeding.

A further advantage of lodging JR immediately is that the HO guidance excludes the need for a pap. I would always suggest one as in proportion to the cost of the JR it works out well and can lead to the client recovering costs that otherwise might not be recovered. The pap however does not need to give 14 days but only 24 hours or 12 hours to grant release.

This is a massive change and I imagine that a lot of clients will be caught out as a result of this change to Chapter 60 of the Enforcement Instruction Guidance manual and come to me requiring an injunction. This is not fatal as I have secured many injunctions in very difficult circumstances from both the High Court and also the Court of Appeal.

However the best way of avoiding this problem is to get in contact with me or a reputable direct access immigration barrister upon detention and seek to secure release as soon as possible. Imperium Chambers, of which I am the head is highly experienced in both Judicial Review applications and also Injunctions and is waiting for you 24 hours / 7 days a week. We recognise that while the working week and a lot of firms shut at 5 that worry and the fear of detention and removal continues at night and at the weekend.

Please do not feel frightened or worried about calling. We are here for you. It is our mission to ensure that justice is open to all and that those who have a desiring case are represented. We understand that as matters have changed they have become more stacked against the Applicant than ever before.

Paul Turner is an experienced and highly regard direct access immigration barrister who is the head of Imperium Chambers , 32 Beford Row, London, WC1R 4HE, 07432 101 211 or 0207 242 3488 and a member of the chambers of Goldsmith Chambers, the Temple the chambers of Tony Metzer QC and who can be contacted 7 days a week for assistance.