Skip to main content
Morning Star Conference
Appeal court quashes Home Office policy of removing migrants without access to justice
Pro-migrants protest outside the Home Office in central London, to demand safe passage for migrants across the English Channel

A HOME Office policy giving migrants as little as 72 hours’ notice of their impending deportation was unlawful, the Court of Appeal ruled today.

The Medical Justice charity took legal action over the policy, under which migrants were given between three and seven days’ notice that they might be removed from the UK at some point in the next three months without any further warning.

The charity argued that it would be impossible for anyone who did not already have a lawyer to obtain one in the brief notice period, meaning that the policy posed “a serious threat to the rule of law.”

In September last year, the High Court rejected Medical Justice’s claim that the Home Office had “curtailed or removed the right of access to court to challenge [its] decisions.”

Mr Justice Freedman found that the Home Office had included “a whole series of safeguards” in the policy which he said “operate so as to preserve rather than to impede access to justice.”

But Medical Justice took its case to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously ruled that the policy was unlawful because it led to “a real risk of denial of access to justice.”

Lord Justice Hickinbottom — sitting with the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and Lord Justice Coulson — found that “whether an irregular migrant is removed before he or she has had an opportunity to obtain legal advice and apply to the court is a matter of pure happenchance.”

He found that the policy, which had been suspended since March 2019 pending the outcome of Medical Justice’s case, was therefore arbitrary and unlawful.

Lord Justice Hickinbottom said that the policy “incorporated an unacceptable risk of interference with the right of access to court by exposing a category of irregular migrants … to the risk of removal without any proper opportunity to challenge a relevant decision in a court or tribunal.”

In a statement after the ruling, a Medical Justice spokeswoman said: “One of our society’s most precious treasures is access to justice.

“Chillingly, away from the public gaze, this policy denied that fundamental right on a massive scale, causing serious harm to extremely vulnerable people and risking life.

“It was effectively a shortcut to removal. Quashing the policy brings us back towards equal access to justice for all.”

Support the Morning Star
You have reached the free limit.
Subscribe to continue reading.
More from this author
Britain / 17 June 2021
17 June 2021
All eight claimants say Labour acted unfairly by failing to close investigations or revoke their suspension or expulsion
Similar stories
Police officers and protesters clash in Trafalgar Square during a March for Palestine in London, October 14, 2023
Protest Law / 2 May 2025
2 May 2025

Court of Appeal rules key anti-protest legislation was forced through unlawfully

MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS: AI Truth Machine / LIT Law Lab,
Features / 12 April 2025
12 April 2025
ANSELM ELDERGILL asks whether artificial intelligence may decide legal cases in the future, in place of human judges, and how AI could reshape the legal landscape
AN IMPERATIVE CALL: Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers pro
Features / 11 January 2025
11 January 2025
PROFESSOR ANSELM ELDERGILL suggests ways in which the government can boost legal aid and support
Journalists Trevor Birney (left) and Barry McCaffrey during
World / 17 December 2024
17 December 2024
Journalists call for public inquiry into police surveillance of journalists in Northern Ireland