Category Archives: In The News

Free movement Cut Off Date – free movement to be ended?

Free Movement cut off date to be announced

It has been reported, by The Telegraph, that the unelected British Prime Minister – Theresa May is poised to end the free movement of new EU migrants on the same day article 50 is triggered.

The Telegraph is reporting that the PM is  expected to say EU citizens who travel to Britain after she triggers Article 50 will no longer have the automatic right to stay in the UK permanently.

It is also reported that those who arrived in the UK before the cut off date will have their rights protected, if British citizens are given the same protections elsewhere.  If this is the case, then this could well affect the Surinder Singh Route.

However, if you have been living together in the UK before we actually leave the EU, there should be some form of protections to enable you to continue living together as a couple.  There is currently leave to remain outside the rules – the ten year route – FLR(FP) / FLR(o).  It is hoped that those who are affected by this news – if of any substance – will face no issues in transferring to this route.

More will be posted as known…

Irene Clennell – 53 Year Old Grandmother Removed

Home Office Forcibly removes 53 year old grandmother

A grandmother – who made headlines for being placed in immigration detention after living in Britain for nearly 30 years – was forcibly removed from the country on Sunday.

Irene Clennell, a 53 year old grandmother, who has spent almost 30 years living in the UK has been forcibly removed from the UK by UK Home Office officials.  She has just £12 in her pocket – AngleNews states (Irene Clennell Removed).  This is quite drastic considering that Irene has once held ILR (Indefinite leave to remain) which only expired because she left the country to care for her sick parents.

The government keep on harping on about “British Values”.  Well please explain how these actions are British.  This is an outright disgusting act, by a government who wants to stop at nothing to reduce it’s net migration numbers.


#MMCase has been ruled – Minimum income requirement here to stay

What is the MMCase Minimum Income Requirement ruling?

divided spousesThe Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the #MMcase – Minimum Income Requirement.  It has ruled in favour of the government in principle.  That is that it is entirely legitimate for ministers to use income rules to control immigration.  They validated this by adding that minimum income rules have been ruled by the ECtHR to be compatible with human rights.

However, please do not let this disappointment relating to the mmcase minimum income requirement get you down.  because…

UK Government have breached the rights of kids for years

The Supreme Court didn’t just answer the question as to whether the MIR (MMCase Minimum Income Requirement) was lawful.  The court went onto note that the rules have been poorly applied in relation to rights of children.  The court has stated that the rules fail to adequately incorporate the Home Office’s S.55 BCIA duty into the framework/rules.

91.              In our view the instructions in their present form (quoted at para 24 above) do not adequately fill the gap left by the rules. Rather than treating the best interests of children as a primary consideration, taking account of the factors summarised in Jeunesse, they lay down a highly prescriptive criterion requiring “factors … that can only be alleviated by the presence of the applicant in the UK”, such as support during a major medical procedure, or “prevention of abandonment where there is no other family member …”. It seems doubtful that even the applicant in Jeunesse itself would have satisfied such a stringent test. Furthermore, although section 55 is in terms directed to children in the UK, the Secretary of State has accepted that the same approach should be applied to the welfare of children elsewhere (see para 46 above).

92.              We have no doubt therefore that the guidance is defective in this respect and needs to be amended in line with principles stated by the Strasbourg court. Furthermore, the statement in GEN.1.1 that the duty has already been taken into account in the rules is wrong in law. Nor is the gap filled by GEN.1.10-11 which refer to the separate consideration under article 8, but not section 55. This is not simply a defect of form, nor a gap which can be adequately filled by the instructions. The duty imposed by section 55 of the 2009 Act stands on its own feet as a statutory requirement apart from the HRA or the Convention. It applies to the performance of any of Secretary of State’s functions including the making of the rules. While the detailed guidance may be given by instructions, it should be clear from the rules themselves that the statutory duty has been properly taken into account. We would grant a declaration that in this respect both the rules and the instructions are unlawful.

It also notes that the rules fail to do a proper assessment of a couple’s income.

[2017] UKSC 10 goes on in Para 100 to note that the case workers have a positive article 8 duty to take into consideration other funding sources ETC.

100.          As already explained, we do not see this as an issue going to the legality of the rules as such. What is necessary is that the guidance to officers should make clear that, where the circumstances give rise to a positive article 8 duty in the sense explained in Jeunesse, a broader approach may be required in drawing the “fair balance” required by the Strasbourg court. They are entitled to take account of the Secretary of State’s policy objectives, but in judging whether they are met, they are not precluded from taking account of other reliable sources of earnings or finance. It is open to the Secretary of State to indicate criteria by which reliability of such sources may be judged, but not to exclude them altogether.

So what does this mean now?

It looks like we’re stuck with the MMCase Minimum Income Requirement (#MIR).  However, at least this latest ruling reinforces the well known fact (which has been ignored by the Home Office for years) that when you’ve got kids, further protections / considerations have to be taken into account.

This point is something that I have personally argued for years.  The Home Office have for far too long brushed the needs of kids aside.  We are all aware that a child needs two loving parents, yet government officials believe that they can decide what a child needs is different to what children actually need.

External Links

You can view more information relating to the MMCase – [2017] UKSC 10  on the Supreme Court’s website.


In just 30 minutes as I write the Supreme Court is to hand down a judgment in the #mmcase.   You can view live on the Supreme Court website here:


It’s been a year since the case hearing in the SC began  on 22nd Feb 16, with the case lasting three days.  With litterally just under a year since the case hearing concluded many thousands of people – families – have been sat  on the edge of their seats waiting for an answer from our justice system.


So what is the word… Not long to find out.  Make sure you tune in to view.





The Supreme Court Ruling for MM is Coming

Wednesday 22 February 2017
Courtroom 1

The supreme Court case of mm and others – that’s the financial requirement judgement – is due to be handed down.   A year since the  court hearing in 2016 about this archaic ruling which divides thousands of family’s based on money,  we’ll all soon enough have some closure – whether good or bad is to be seen.


Fingers crossed guys.


More information is available in the Supreme Court website.  You will also be able to watch it live: supreme Court news about mm case

Gov.UK: Statement regarding rights of EU Nationals in UK

The UK Government has released a statement relating to the status of eu nationals in the uk .

There has been no change to the rights and status of EU nationals* in the UK, and UK nationals in the EU, as a result of the referendum.

This is something we knew already.  But it was nice of them to confirm, given the recent news, and attacks on foreign nationals.  There is more info on the statement and worth a read.

Calling For Contact from Singhers / Separated Families

Further to Don McVey’s short documentary (The Price of Love), which was released earlier in the month, Benjamin Cowles is currently looking to create a similar project.

Benjamin is a MA Journalism student. The MA is Journalism, War and International Human Rights. His film is still in the very early stages at the moment. It is going to focus on the UK Immigration Regulations for Britons with non-EEA partners and the Human Rights violations that these incur.

Benjamin states that he is a firm believer in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the UK is a signatory. In which Article 16 states that men and women have the right to marry and found a family. The same sentiment is echoed in the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The UK government claims to uphold human rights, yet – as many of us know – this is only when it suits them. The documentary is to focus on this right to marry people from beyond European borders. Another reason Benjamin want to cover this topic is that it also affects him…

I was shocked to learn that I couldn’t exercise the basic human right to live with her [my girlfriend] in the country I grew up in.

The film won’t only be focusing on the SS route [Surinder Singh Route], but also on the plight of other couples, especially LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] couples who have far more pressure to deal with.

If you’d like to be involved or if have any more questions you can contact Benjamin who will be more than interested to hear your story.

Benjamin can be emailed on cowlesz [at] hotmail [dot] co [dot] uk

BBC: “The Britons leaving the UK to get their relatives in”

The BBC Article can be found here: The Britons Leaving the UK to get their relatives in. It is a rather ‘enlightening’ article on the Surinder Singh Route for anybody who want’s to follow it up.

However, regardless of how insightful the article is, it is rather depressing that their headline is accusing British citizens of bypassing immigration regulations by using a technicality.  As it is outlined on the front page of this website.  This route is based on a ruling of the European Courts.  Any ruling in the European Courts is enforcable in the UK’s legislation.