Close
Professor Tom Hickman acts in cases on immigration and human rights.
22 May 2025
GCDC member Professor Tom Hickman recently acted in two cases with immigration and human rights implications.
In the first case, Attorney General of the Cayman Islands v Buray [2025] UKPC 22, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council considered whether section 37(3) of the Cayman Islands’ Immigration (Transition) Act (2021 Revision) – which sets out a points-based immigration system – was incompatible with section 9 of the territory’s Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life.
The Privy Council held that the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands was wrong to issue a declaration of incompatibility because (a) the question of compatibility did not arise on the facts of the cases under appeal and (b) other provisions within the immigration system allow for consideration of the section 9 right to private and family life.
In the second case, U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 19, the UK Supreme Court addressed the proper approach of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to a national security assessment in cases involving the deprivation of British citizenship and refusal of leave to enter the UK. The Court clarified SIAC’s functions in such cases, noting at para 69
that an appeal is not equivalent to an application for judicial review; that different issues that may arise in an appeal require to be approached in different ways; that SIAC conducts a review of the Secretary of State’s assessment of the risk to national security based on the application of principles of administrative law; that this is a different exercise from fact-finding on a balance of probabilities; and that in carrying out the review, and especially when considering the reasonableness of the Secretary of State’s decision, it should attach very considerable weight to the Secretary of State’s evaluation.
Additionally, the Court noted that in making its decision, SIAC must ensure respect for rights protected by the ECHR, including article 8 which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that SIAC was entitled to reach the conclusions it did – including the decision that interference with the article 8 rights of the appellant’s children was proportionate – and upheld the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appeals against SIAC’s decisions.