Immigration Act 2016 and its impact on human rights

Introduction

The Immigration Act 2016 (IA 2016) is a new piece of legislation that adds to the growing body of law and policy in the UK, which aims at controlling illegal immigration into the UK. The Act ensures controls on illegal immigration by providing legal controls on immigrants’ access to services, facilities, work and licences in the UK. The principal objective of this Act is to prevent and punish illegal immigration. Another important objective is to control the illegal labour market in the UK, which sees employers employing people with suspect immigration status.

Since the passage of this law, there have been concerns raised about the impact that the law will have on the human rights of the immigrants. In particular, concerns are raised about the vulnerability of the immigrants in the labour market and the possibility of exploitation of the immigrants by unscrupulous employers. It is argued that the law may allow employers to take advantage of the immigration status of employees to force them to work for much less money under the threat that unless the employee worked under these conditions, the employer may report to the authorities about the employee’s immigration status. Another concern relates to the access of services by the immigrants. Services such as housing, banking, etc., are accessible only to those who are lawful immigrants, and this may leave many immigrants who are awaiting immigration appeals in the lurch. Yet another concern is related to the ‘deport first appeal later’ process, which encompasses all immigrants, including those who are awaiting asylum appeals, so that even asylum seekers can be deported back to their countries to make an appeal from there.

This essay critically analyses the potential impact of the IA 2016 on the human rights of immigrants. The essay first discusses the background of immigrants’ human rights

• The Immigration Act 2016, Preamble.
• J Crawford, S Leahy, & K McKee, “The Immigration Act and the ‘Right to Rent’: exploring governing tensions within and beyond the state” (2016) 10 (2) People, Place and Policy 114.
• Ibid.
• Ibid.
• Louise Waite, ‘Asylum Seekers and the Labour Market: Spaces of Discomfort and Hostility’ (2017) Social Policy and Society 1.
• Ibid.
• C Vargas-Silva, “Briefing: Migrants and Housing in the UK: experiences and impacts”, accessed http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/ migobs/Briefing%20-%20Migrants%20and%20Housing%20in%20the%20UK.pdf.
• Sarah Singer, ‘Undesirable and Unreturnable” in the United Kingdom’ (2017) 36 (1) Refugee Survey Quarterly 9.

jurisprudence in the UK in order to create a background of the issue. Then the essay discusses the principal provisions of the IA 2016 and then finally critically appraises the provisions in light of the human rights protections.

Immigration Act 2016: The law and its impact on human rights

Immigration has been an important area of public and political discourse in the UK over a long period of time. It can be said that there are many themes that have impacted the discourse and has also impacted the law and policy on immigration over the years. One of the writers on this issue has identified nine themes that have had an impact on immigration law, saying that debates and discourse have typically revolved around issues of planning, commonwealth, European Community membership, international law, diversity, race, civil liberties, language, diversity, bipartisan policy and assimilation or integration of the immigrants in the UK. This essay concerns the impact of IA 2016 on human rights.

The IA 2016 contains many provisions that engage human rights of immigrants. The UK being a member of the European Union, is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Although the making of immigration law and policy is the prerogative of the state, EU membership has meant that the law made by the state conforms with the EU law. The supremacy of the EU law has been established by the European Court of Justice, which is the highest European court for matters related to the EU law. Courts in the UK have also acknowledged the supremacy of the EU law. With respect to human rights, the ECHR is the principal human rights treaty of the EU and the ECtHR is the court with final jurisdiction with respect to the content of the treaty. It has been held by the House of Lords that no national court should "without strong reason dilute or weaken the effect of the Strasbourg case law.” Moreover, the European Communities Act 1972, passed by the British Parliament provides in section 2(1) that domestic laws must be in conformity with the EU law. Therefore, the provisions of the IA 2016 and their impact on the human rights of the immigrants, have to be seen in the context of the European jurisprudence on immigrant rights as well.

• V Bevan, The Development of British Immigration Law (London: Croom Helm 1986).
• Costa v Enel (1964) Case 6/64 (1964).
• R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, [1991] 1 All ER 70.
• Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet, ‘The reception of the ECHR in national legal orders’, in Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet (eds.), A Europe of rights: the impact of the ECHR on national legal systems (Oxford University Press 2008) 4.
• R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator, [2004] UKHL 26.
• C Turpin & A Tomkins, British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011) 351.

The ECtHR has had occasion to consider immigrant rights, therefore, the jurisprudence is created by the court for the purpose of immigrant rights. These cases relate to different aspects of immigrant rights, such as right to life, freedom from torture or right to family life, to name a few. Some of these rights are affected by the IA 2016. For instance, in one case, the court held that the immigrant could not be deported to his country due to fear that evidence may be forced out of him through torture. This case was an instance of the court upholding the right to life of an individual as guaranteed by the ECHR. However, the ‘deport first appeal later’ process, allows those awaiting asylum appeals, to be deported back to their countries to make an appeal from there. This is a clear violation of the right of life of the asylum seekers as their life may be threatened in their own countries. The ‘deport first appeal later’ was first applied only to foreign offenders under the Immigration Act 2014, but under the present Act, the scope has enlarged to all immigrants. In another case related to another ECHR right, that is, right to family under Article 8, the court held that private life includes “the totality of social ties between migrants and the community in which they live.” The IA 2016 seeks to limit the scope of Article 8 rights with respect to immigrants, and in this the idea is an extension of similar provisions in the Immigration Act 2014. The reason for this approach is that Article 8 has been an impediment for the government in dealing with undesirable immigrants. However, in its zeal to ensure that it can easily deport undesirable immigrants, the IA 2016 makes blanket provisions for all immigrants.

At the same time, it is important to note that the state is well within its powers to make laws on immigration control in public interest or social and economic considerations. What can be reiterated at this point is that there are a number of cases which have ruled upon different aspects of rights that are available to the immigrants as well as the interpretation of these rights; and the jurisprudence on the state prerogative to control immigration is also in place. Therefore, immigration law is often a balancing act, with the state balancing the need to ensure immigration control with the duty to respect human rights of immigrants.

The British Parliament has passed the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) for the purpose

• Abu Qatada v United Kingdom, (2012) 55 EHRR 1.
• Sarah Singer, ‘Undesirable and Unreturnable” in the United Kingdom’ (2017) 36 (1) Refugee Survey Quarterly 9.
• Maslov v Austria, [2008] ECHR 546.
• R(Kardi) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 934.
• Sarah Singer, ‘Undesirable and Unreturnable” in the United Kingdom’ (2017) 36 (1) Refugee Survey Quarterly 9.
• Konstantinov v The Netherlands, Application No. 16351/03.

of enacting the ECHR rights into British law. With the passage of this Act, the rights in the ECHR have achieved a status of statutory rights. This is the most important legislation on codification of human rights in the UK. Section 4 of the HRA 1998 also gives power to the British courts to make declarations of incompatibility in any British legislation is conflicting with the ECHR. Cases decided by British courts have seen the use of this provision to declare incompatibility between British law and the ECHR. Therefore, in case of conflict between ECHR and the British law, the courts in the UK have generally given precedence to the ECHR. Therefore, the HRA 1998 is also an important legislation for appraising the impact of the IA 2016 on the human rights of immigrants.

The British courts have applied liberal principles while interpreting immigrant rights. In one case, the House of Lords has held that section 84(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s.84(1) should be interpreted widely in order to treat the family unit as a whole for protecting the rights of the immigrants under the ECHR, Article 8.

There are some aspects of human rights, particularly, the rights of child, that the IA 2016 seeks to protect. An example is the continuing effect of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (BCIA 2009) which has imposed the duty on the Secretary of State, to "[have] regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom". This duty is in consonance with the human rights principles ensuring that the rights and welfare of immigrant children are protected by the state.

The Home Office has expressed that the purpose of the Act is to make UK a less attractive place for immigrants by not providing them the services, like housing, banking, employment, etc. In that sense, the Act is prohibitive in nature for the illegal immigrants. While the intention of the Act is laudable, it is worth considering whether prohibition of access to services has an impact on the human rights of the immigrants.

Part 2 of the IA 2016 restricts illegal immigrants from access to services like housing, banking and driving licences. A landlord commits an offence under the Act, if he gives accommodation to a person he knows or has reasonable cause to believe, is disqualified from occupying the house under the residential tenancy agreement, due to his immigration status.

• A Mowbray, Cases, Materials and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012).
• G Slapper & D Kelly, The English Legal System (London: Taylor & Francis 2009).
• A & Others v. Secretary of the State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 43.
• Attorney General’s Reference (No. 4 of 2002), [2004] UKHL 56.
• Beoku-Betts v SSHD, [2008] UKHL 39.
• The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, Section 55.
• J Crawford, S Leahy, & K McKee, “The Immigration Act and the ‘Right to Rent’, Supra note 2.
• Immigration Act 2016, s.39 amending the Immigration Act 2014 by inserting s. 33A.

Similarly, an agent who has facilitated the housing for a person who is disqualified due to his immigration status is also guilty of an offence under s. 33B of the Immigration Act 2014. Thus, under the provisions of the new Act, if a person does not have a ‘right to rent’, then neither the landlord nor the agent can facilitate rented accommodation. This Act empowers or forces the landlord to easily evict such persons from his premises. There is a high chance of exercise of abuse or upper hand by the landlord and no regulation is available to tackle such issue, if at all it arises. The ‘right to rent’ provision is basically extended from the Immigration Act 2014, which was reviewed in a report sponsored by the Home Office and its findings are relevant to IA 2016 as well. One of the findings of the study based on the comments by some landlords, was that there was a potential for discrimination against immigrants as a result of the provision.

Furthermore, IA 2016 encompasses steps to limit illegal immigrants from retaining UK driving license and to restrain them from driving. This goes against the right to earn livelihood where the section empowers authorities to snatch somebody’s means of providing for the family without offering any alternatives. Moreover, bank accounts of the immigrants can be frozen if they are found to be living illegally. This can leave people in a financial crisis and may also have the effect of pushing them into the illegal job market. Taken in conjunction with another important purpose of the Act, that is, to ensure that under no circumstances, the illegal immigrants should get recourse to public funds, one can gather that freezing of bank accounts, lack of public services and employment can create a dire financial situation for such immigrants exposing them to illegal job markets.

Basically, there are a lot of checks that are to be done by employers, banks, landlords, giving rise to “Domesticated Bordering”, which is a term that is used to describe such a scenario in which there is sudden rise in compliance checks being conducted with enormous documentation and verification on basic transactions. This gives rise to eyeing every conduct and manner with suspicion and giving rise to a huge shift in public debate of migration. There are sensational stories carried out in the media channels and public

• Claire Brickell, Tom Bucke, Jonathan Burchell, Miriam Davidson, Ewan Kennedy, Rebecca Linley, Andrew Zurawan, ‘Evaluation of the Right to Rent scheme Full evaluation report of phase one (Research Report 83 2015), accessed .
• Immigration Act 2016, s.39 amending the Immigration Act 2014 by inserting s. 33A.
• Ibid.
• Nira Yuval-Davis, Georgie Wemyss, and Kathryn Cassidy, ‘Everyday bordering, belonging and the reorientation of British immigration legislation’ (2017) Sociology accessed < http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038038517702599>

sympathies are either exploited in favour of or against the Act. Occurrence of a divide and categorization in public and political environment is there to be seen. The side effects of the Act show the Act in a general light with no focus to achieve specific solution.

The provisions of the IA 2016, related to housing are criticised because affected persons may be families with children, or victims of humanitarian crisis. It is seen that migrant experience with respect to housing varies with different types of migrants, with different rights, opportunities and resources. Many of the undocumented immigrants may be illegal in the sense of their having come to the country surreptitiously and without permits. However, there may even be others who have come to the country as victims of persecution or human rights violations and are waiting for their human rights appeals to be decided by the Home Office. The blanket provision does not take into account these significant differences and rather it makes the provision for all immigrants without right to rent. Social Justice Secretary Alex Neil MSP indicates concerns about the Act by denouncing the UK government for implementing the Act without proper planning and laying inhumane measures that even affected areas such as housing and justice and potentially creating an environment of discriminating against the vulnerable groups.

On the face of it, the Act seems to be aligned to the broader immigration debate in the UK. There have been rising concerns about the illegal immigration in the UK and the impending crisis that the UK will finally reach a point when it will not be able to sustain the immigration and the burden it places on the economy of the UK. However, the problem of immigration is very complex and cannot be answered by simplistic solutions such as the ones provided under the IA 2016, which seeks to create a blanket regime for all undocumented immigrants and denies all of them basic human rights, irrespective of the merits of their claims.

The provisions of the IA 2016 set the tone for the structuring of a strict law and policy for dealing with illegal immigration. Admittedly, there has been a rising concern about the exploitation of the labour market, which has seen unscrupulous employers allowing undocumented immigrants to work for them for a much lesser pay than that payable to a citizen or an immigrant who is allowed to work in the UK. In that sense, the Act seeks to make stringent penalising laws that would make it an offence for employers to allow illegal immigrants to work for them. However, the Act also penalises the immigrants by making it possible for the authorities to seize the ‘proceeds of the crime’, wherein the immigrants are liable to surrender their earnings to the state. Illegal working relates to those immigrants whose immigration status disqualifies such persons from working in the UK. IA 2016, s.34 amends the Immigration Act 1971 to add a new section 24B to that Act, providing the definition of illegal working. The definition provides that if a person works at a time when his immigration disqualifies him from work or such as person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that his immigration status prevents him from working such person commits the offence of illegal working. The offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term up to 51 weeks as well as a fine. This is an important provision in that it creates an offence for anyone who may have employed an immigrant whose immigration status does not permit him to work in the UK. Under this provision, employers showing ignorance of law can be easily prosecuted and can be subjected to sanctions. However, one may state that issues related to illegal working in licensed premises are tackled appropriately and legally as it addresses the flaws created by Licensing Act 2003 that enables acquisition of premises or personal licences without lawful status. Another aspect to this provision is in the unregulated market where thousands of undocumented immigrants exist, employers, in the name of merely fulfilling legal requirement, can abuse the system and become agents of the authority in entrapping such immigrants to forceful legal actions.

• C Vargas-Silva, “Briefing: Migrants and Housing in the UK: experiences and impacts”, accessed , p.2.
• J Crawford, S Leahy, & K McKee, “The Immigration Act and the ‘Right to Rent’, Supra note 1.

liable to surrender their earnings to the state. Illegal working relates to those immigrants whose immigration status disqualifies such persons from working in the UK. IA 2016, s.34 amends the Immigration Act 1971 to add a new section 24B to that Act, providing the definition of illegal working. The definition provides that if a person works at a time when his immigration disqualifies him from work or such as person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that his immigration status prevents him from working such person commits the offence of illegal working. The offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term up to 51 weeks as well as a fine. This is an important provision in that it creates an offence for anyone who may have employed an immigrant whose immigration status does not permit him to work in the UK. Under this provision, employers showing ignorance of law can be easily prosecuted and can be subjected to sanctions. However, one may state that issues related to illegal working in licensed premises are tackled appropriately and legally as it addresses the flaws created by Licensing Act 2003 that enables acquisition of premises or personal licences without lawful status. Another aspect to this provision is in the unregulated market where thousands of undocumented immigrants exist, employers, in the name of merely fulfilling legal requirement, can abuse the system and become agents of the authority in entrapping such immigrants to forceful legal actions.

Take the case of Byron Burger scandal where last July, workers were called in for a training session, which was stormed in by immigration officers. Undocumented workers were arrested and some deported. Byron Burger was not charged with any offences as they had cooperated with the government. However, arguments can be raised against the authorities how they have been turning a blind eye so far to such employers employing immigrants for more than a decade and how they are accounting their taxes and finances. Byron Burger had employed some of these people for a decade or more, yet no legal repercussions were taken against the company.

The implementation of the Act may also have immense effect on Brexit. There can be two groups who would debate on the amount of control and measure the country has to exercise.

• Immigration Act 2016,.34 (3).
• Home Office and Immigration Enforcement, “New powers to tackle illegal working in licensed premises” (2017, April 6), accessed
• A Gordon, “Byron Hamburgers branch is forced to close by far-Left campaigners after chain carried out immigration sting operation on its OWN workers” (2016, August 1)
• Katie Bales, ‘Immigration Raids, Employer Collusion and the Immigration Act’ (2017) 46 (2) Ind Law J 279.

One would be to have more controls and stricter controls on movement of immigrants and the second group would go for a lenient measure with flexibility applied to the movement. No matter which or what level of control the country takes, question remains around in and out movement of or removal of residence of EU citizens and British residents.

Part 3 of the Act provides immigration officers with power to search, seizure and detention. Though the Act has appropriately listed all the necessary steps, the essentials of the law may prove to be too technical and lengthy for the officers to apply or interpret without the temptation of abusing the power they are provided with. Such scenario was seen in the case Jeunesse v The Netherlands, where article 8 of ECHR was debated in the light of applicant’s alleged violation of her rights under the article when she was refused to be exempted from legal requirement to hold provisional residence visa and thereby refused entry to the Netherlands. ECtHR held against her by interpreting formed family life to mean that only in exceptional circumstances non-national family member’s removal may likely breach the convention.

The IA 2016, s. 60 can also be listed down as another drawback of the Act that violates rights of a pregnant woman. The section provides for limitation on detention of pregnant women. It states that a pregnant woman may not be detained for a period of more than 72 hours from the relevant time. The section provides that a person authorised to order the detention must have regard to the woman’s welfare. However, this provision opens up ambiguity in interpretation of the statute as it does not clearly, accurately and completely provide for what actions are to be taken for a pregnant woman who is in the final trimester of pregnancy or who is under a medical emergency. Also, by providing for limitations on detention, the Act is backhandedly providing for detention of up to 72 hours of a woman who is pregnant.

It is also pertinent to note that the new law includes section 63, which provides that the Home Office is authorised to remove a person whose human rights appeal is pending before it. This is a very significant change from the previous law contained in the Immigration Act 2014, which allowed the Home Office to remove persons who were foreign criminals. Section 63 has high possibility to lead to violation of family and private life where a person can be denied access to family in an unjustly manner. The deport-first and appeal-later policy under this section may also lead to delayed access to justice and immense mental stress as well. Following the provisions of the Act, as reported in a Guardian’s article dated September 8,

• H Jones, Y Gunaratnam, G Bhattacharyya, W Davies, S Dhaliwal, K Forkert, R Saltus, O Home!: The Politics of Immigration Controversies (Manchester: Manchester University Press 2017).
• Jeunesse v The Netherlands, Application no. 12738/10, 2015.

2016, the UK government undertook to forcibly deport 50 people who are family members of people resident in Jamaica on a private charter plane. In an alleged violation of article 8 of ECHR that provides for protection of family and private life, the act of the government showed no leniency towards the health of the immigrants, length of stay in the UK, or whether some of them were minors. This is fairly an evidentiary proof about the unjust and unfair practices culminated from the Act.

Now, a person may be a genuine case of human rights persecution and may have an appeal before the Home Office pending and may still be removed from the country. Although, such persons shall have the right to appeal from out of country, the fact of their removal back to the hostile environments makes the entire process of out of country appeals suspect and an unfair and ineffective remedy. From the perspective of judicial administration, it will worth noting that there is already an allegedly pile of pending appeals. HM Courts & Tribunals Service drew up a priority list of cases where cases related to minors and detention are on top priority, and bottom list includes deportation and out of the country appeals from spouse or partner. There is apparently a lack of an organized planning that could effectively tackle delays of cases. It possibly leads to distress of immigrants and creation of a social environment too hostile towards the rights and liberties of immigrants.

The Act includes section 67 that obligates the Secretary of State to make arrangements to relocate unaccompanied refugee children to the United Kingdom and provide support to a specified number of such refugee children from other countries in Europe. This section drew a lot of criticism because of its inhumane approach adopted in executing the provision. There were severe criticisms that were raised against the untimely relocation or lack of steps taken to do so by the government. One such case is that of refugee children in Calais. Help Refugees, a leading refugee organization, and Office of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child criticised the French and British Governments for their inabilities and inaction to protect refugee children in Calais. For until three months after implementation of the Act, the UK government did not reportedly provide or take efforts to provide sanctuary to child refugees. Many minors were unregistered and exposed to inhumane conditions. Several

• J Hyde, “Immigration appeal hearings delayed up to nine months” (2015, October 12) .
• Leigh Day. “High Court grants permission to challenge Home Secretary over Dubs children” (2016, November 4), accessed .
• Ibid
• Ibid

minors reportedly went missing and were also reportedly subjected to human trafficking.

The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, in its memorandum dated March 22, 2016, has listed down a series of concerns related to the Act. It touched upon rights of asylum seekers and immigrants, migrants’ detention period, restrictive provisions stigmatising migrants, right to housing and rent, and restriction on migrants’ entry for family reunification. While appreciating effort of the UK government to provide support to migrants affected by Syrian conflict, it emphasised that the harsh policies under the Act could create stigma around the vulnerable group affected by violent conflicts. If one may see section 59 of Part 3 of the Act, it provides for detention of a vulnerable person leaving the interpretation and determination of the time limit of such detention to be uncertain and ambiguous. The Act does not clearly provide for a time limit of the detention. This leads to direct contradiction with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines regarding detention. The Commissioner pointed out that year ending September 2015 showed a 8% of migrants being detained for between one and two years and a smaller number of 32 for two years or longer.

One of the criticisms of the IA 2016 in the context of human rights is that it fails to consider that a person may be an illegal immigrant for a variety of reasons, some of which may be based on humanitarian grounds. An asylum-seeker will be dependent on the UK government, may live in an immigration detention centre and may be deprived of basic personal liberties. A person may be a victim of human trafficking, or discrimination; or his case may be taking too long before the Home Office, or his documents may be incomplete. The IA 2016 creates a blanket regime which deprives certain immigrants from access to work and basic services such as housing, without considering the merits of some of the individual cases of the immigrants.

Conclusion

The IA 2016 was passed with the objective of controlling illegal immigration and illegal labour markets in the UK. Illegal immigration and the creation of illegal job markets in the UK, are now matters of serious concern. Critics of a liberal immigration regime say that the

• Ibid.
• Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Memorandum on the human rights of asylum seekers and immigrants in the United Kingdom (2016).
• Ibid.
• Ibid
• H Petch, J Perry, & S Lukes, How to improve services for destitute migrants (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2015).

UK is now facing an impending crisis under which, it will not be able to sustain the immigration and the burden it places on the economy of the UK.

The IA 2016 seeks to create a tougher regime, which makes it a penal offence for landlords to give premises on rent to those who are not permitted to rent in the UK; employers are also to be penalised for giving work to those who do not have permit to work in the UK. It is submitted that this is a creation of a blanket regime on immigrants. Tough measures like detention of a pregnant woman of up to 72 hours, deportation of entire families are also provided for. It is also noteworthy that the offences under the Act are met with severe punishment under the Act. Therefore, the Act is trying to create a deterrent regime for the control of illegal immigration and illegal job market in the UK. While the purpose of the Act is laudable, the measures adopted by the Act are harsh, when considered in the context of human rights. What the law has done is that it has created a blanket regime to tackle the problem of illegal immigration, which may also be engaged with respect to those who are genuine cases of refuge or asylum.

Regardless of the problems that are associated with illegal immigration and illegal job markets, the problem of immigration is very complex. It cannot be answered by simplistic solutions such as the ones provided under the IA 2016, which seeks to create a blanket regime for all undocumented immigrants. One of the criticisms of the IA 2016 in the context of human rights is that it fails to consider that a person may be an illegal immigrant for a variety of reasons, some of which may be based on humanitarian grounds. Therefore, the problem of illegal immigration needs to be responded to by the state, but not by the creation of a blanket regime as is done in the IA 2016.

Table of cases

• A & Others v. Secretary of the State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 43.
• Attorney General’s Reference (No. 4 of 2002), [2004] UKHL 56.
• Abu Qatada v United Kingdom, (2012) 55 EHRR 1.
• Beoku-Betts v SSHD, [2008] UKHL 39.
• Costa v Enel (1964) Case 6/64.
• Jeunesse v The Netherlands, 60 EHRR 17 (ECHR October 2015).
• Konstantinov v The Netherlands, Application No. 16351/03.
• Maslov v Austria, [2008] ECHR 546.
• R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, [1991] 1 All ER 70.
• R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator, [2004] UKHL 26.
• ZB v SSHD, [2009] EWCA Civ 834.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to How has the concept of ‘fairness’ evolved in ancillary relief claims?.

Bibliography

Books

• Bevan C, The Development of British Immigration Law (London: Croom Helm 1986).
• Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Memorandum on the human rights of asylum seekers and immigrants in the United Kingdom (2016).
• Jones H, Gunaratnam Y, Bhattacharyya G, Davies W, Dhaliwal S, Forkert K, Saltus R, O Home!: The Politics of Immigration Controversies (Manchester: Manchester University Press 2017).
• Keller H and Sweet AS, ‘The reception of the ECHR in national legal orders’, in Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet (eds.), A Europe of rights: the impact of the ECHR on national legal systems (Oxford University Press 2008).
• Mowbray A, Cases, Materials and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012).
• Petch H, Perry J, & Lukes S, How to improve services for destitute migrants (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2015).
• Slapper G & Kelly D, The English Legal System (London: Taylor & Francis 2009).
• Turpin C & Tomkins A, British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011).

Journal Articles

• Bales K, ‘Immigration Raids, Employer Collusion and the Immigration Act’ (2017) 46 (2) Ind Law J 279.
• Crawford J, Leahy S, & McKee K, “The Immigration Act and the ‘Right to Rent’: exploring governing tensions within and beyond the state” (2016) 10 (2) People, Place and Policy 114.
• Mulvey G, ‘When policy creates politics: The problematizing of immigration and the consequences for refugee integration in the UK’ (2010) 23(4) Journal of Refugee Studies 437.
• Singer, ‘Undesirable and Unreturnable” in the United Kingdom’ (2017) 36 (1) Refugee Survey Quarterly 9.
• Waite L, ‘Asylum Seekers and the Labour Market: Spaces of Discomfort and Hostility’ (2017) Social Policy and Society 1.

Websites

• Bogdanor V, ‘The EU Referendum Shows How the Sovereignty of Britain's People can now Trump its Parliament’ (2016, June 26), accessed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/the-eu-referendum-shows-how-the-sovereignty-of-britains-people-c/
• Brickell C, Bucke T, Burchell J, Davidson M, Kennedy E, Linley R, Zurawan A, ‘Evaluation of the Right to Rent scheme Full evaluation report of phase one (Research Report 83 2015), accessed .
• Day L, ‘High Court grants permission to challenge Home Secretary over Dubs children’ (2016, November 4), accessed .
• Gordon A, ‘Byron Hamburgers branch is forced to close by far-Left campaigners after chain carried out immigration sting operation on its OWN workers’ (2016, August 1)
• Hyde J, “Immigration appeal hearings delayed up to nine months” (2015, October 12) .
• Home Office and Immigration Enforcement, 'New powers to tackle illegal working in licensed premises'(2017, April 6), accessed
• Linley AZ, ‘Evaluation of the Right to Rent scheme Full evaluation report of phase one (Research Report 83 2015), accessed .
• Taylor A, 'Why the language we use to talk about refugees matters so much' (2015, July 30), accessed
• Vargas-Silva C, 'Briefing: Migrants and Housing in the UK: experiences and impacts', accessed
• Yuval-Davis N, Wemyss G, and Cassidy K, ‘Everyday bordering, belonging and the reorientation of British immigration legislation’ (2017) Sociology accessed < http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038038517702599>