immigration

When can the Home Secretary revive an argument she withdrew below?

21 August 2026 by Guest Contributor

The UK Human Rights Blog is moving to Substack.

From 19^th October, all new articles will be published exclusively on our Substack, and no new content will appear on our current website.

To stay up to date with our latest articles and insights, please subscribe here: https://substack.com/@ukhumanrightsblog

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hirtie [2026] EWCA Civ 1000, handed down by the Court of Appeal on 30 July 2026, is a deportation appeal that turns less on the substance of Article 8 than on procedural discipline: whether a party who unequivocally withdraws a ground of appeal before the Upper Tribunal (”UT”) can resurrect it before the Court of Appeal. The Court’s answer, delivered by Stuart-Smith LJ, was a firm no, reinforcing a growing body of authority requiring parties to identify and narrow the issues in dispute at the earliest opportunity.

Background

Mr Hirtie, a Romanian national, was convicted of section 18 wounding with intent (the most serious form of assault) and sentenced to 39 months’ imprisonment, making him a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 and liable to automatic deportation.

The Secretary of State (”SSHD”) rejected his human rights claim in September 2023, finding that neither exception to deportation under section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 applied and that there were no “very compelling circumstances” outweighing the public interest in removal.

The decision letter was structured throughout on the assumption that Mr Hirtie’s partner and children would remain in the United Kingdom following his deportation — the “stay” scenario. As Hirtie records at §13: “The structure of the SSHD’s reasoning is clear beyond argument: the possibility of Mr Hirtie’s partner and children going to live in Romania was simply not in issue.”

The route through the tribunals

Mr Hirtie’s skeleton argument before the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) expressly identified the “go” scenario as a matter not in dispute, and the SSHD never contradicted this. The FtT allowed the appeal, finding that separation from Mr Hirtie would have a “profound” impact on his partner — going “beyond undue hardship” — given her traumatic history of losing her parents young and being raised in an orphanage, and that this amounted to “very compelling circumstances” under section 117C(6).

On appeal to the UT, the SSHD raised the “go” scenario for the first time as Ground 1, drafted in terms the presiding judge, UTJ O’Callaghan, considered misleading. Hirtie records at §31: “The end result was that the Senior Presenting Officer who was appearing for the SSHD agreed that Ground 1 … should be withdrawn. The withdrawal was unequivocal, albeit in the face of a heavy judicial headwind.” The UT went on to reject the SSHD’s remaining ground and upheld the FtT’s decision.

Reviving a withdrawn ground

Before the Court of Appeal, the SSHD sought to resurrect the “go” scenario, arguing that section 117A(2)(b) of the 2002 Act obliged the tribunal to consider it regardless of whether either party had raised it. Warby LJ, granting permission, deliberately left open whether a party could revive an argument withdrawn below.

Stuart-Smith LJ rejected the attempt at §52: “She had been properly represented before the UT and was not forced to withdraw the ground. No good reason was offered for resurrecting it on appeal.”

Applying Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360, decided 7 March 2019, the Court set out the governing test for admitting a new point on appeal. Haddon-Cave LJ held at §16-17 of that case: “An appellate court will be cautious about allowing a new point to be raised on appeal that was not raised before the first instance court… An appellate court will not, generally, permit a new point to be raised on appeal if that point is such that either (a) it would necessitate new evidence or (b), had it been run below, it would have resulted in the trial being conducted differently with regards to the evidence at the trial.”

Applying this in Hirtie, the Court held at §53 that admitting the “go” scenario would require fresh evidence about relocation difficulties, that the FtT hearing would have unfolded differently had the issue been live, and that this was not a pure point of law the Court of Appeal could resolve without remittal.

The deeper procedural principle

More fundamentally, the Court held that allowing the SSHD to raise the “go” scenario now would conflict with the case-management philosophy established in Lata (FtT: Principal Controversial Issues) [2023] UKUT 163 (IAC), decided 23 June 2023, and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in AL v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 370, handed down 31 March 2026.

Lata’s headnote states at point 4: “It is a misconception that it is sufficient for a party to be silent upon, or not make an express consideration as to, an issue for a burden to then be placed upon a judge to consider all potential issues that may favourably arise, even if not expressly relied upon.”

In AL, Elisabeth Laing LJ endorsed this approach, explaining at §78 that upon proper engagement with the appeal skeleton process “a judge sitting in the First-tier Tribunal can properly expect clarity as to the remaining issues between the parties by the date of the substantive hearing.” She further held, applying the narrow Robinson-obvious exception (from R (Robinson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1998] QB 929), that a decision cannot be criticised for failing to address an issue neither party raised, unless it was “a point which has strong prospects of success if it is argued. Nothing less will do” (Robinson at 946B-D, cited in AL at §68).

Hirtie held at §54-55 that the SSHD was not exempt from this obligation. Having omitted any reasoned discussion of relocation difficulties from the decision letter, and having failed to challenge Mr Hirtie’s skeleton assertion that the “go” scenario was not in dispute, her silence was, per Stuart-Smith LJ, “consistent with the issue not forming part of her decision-making process and not being in dispute between the parties.”

The “very compelling circumstances” ground

The SSHD’s second ground argued that the FtT’s finding of “very compelling circumstances” was legally flawed, inadequately reasoned, and perverse — partly because the judge did not expressly cite section 117C, and partly for want of expert medical evidence about the partner’s mental health.

The Court disagreed. At §62-63, Stuart-Smith LJ held that although the FtT judge did not set out section 117C verbatim, he plainly understood and applied the correct “very high bar,” relying on Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60, decided 16 November 2016 (also cited as Hesham Ali), for the proposition that the public interest in deporting foreign criminals must be accorded very significant weight. The absence of a concluding checklist recapping the relevant factors was immaterial (§64).

On perversity, the FtT judge had found the partner and Mr Hirtie’s brother “honest and credible” witnesses giving “sincere and heartfelt evidence” (§66-67), and the Court held that FtT judges are entitled to make findings about the psychological impact of separation on the basis of accepted witness evidence alone, without corroborating expert medical evidence. The judge’s conclusion, reached “by a narrow margin,” was nonetheless sufficient to withstand appellate scrutiny (§68).

Comment

Hirtie offers several practical lessons for immigration and public law practitioners handling deportation and Article 8 appeals:

• Withdrawal is generally final. A party that unequivocally withdraws a ground before the UT, while properly represented and without compulsion, should not expect the Court of Appeal to allow its resurrection absent compelling justification (Hirtie at §52).
• Case-management discipline applies to the Secretary of State too. Lata and AL are not confined to appellants; the SSHD is equally bound to identify and narrow issues at the earliest stage (Hirtie at §55).
• Silence has consequences. Failing to engage with an opponent’s stated “matters not in dispute” will be treated as acceptance, not oversight (Lata headnote, point 4).
• New points face a high bar. Singh v Dass remains the touchstone: a new point requiring fresh evidence, or one that would have changed how the hearing below was conducted, will not be entertained on appeal (Singh at §16-17).
• The FtT’s reasoning need not be exhaustive. Provided the tribunal identifies and applies the correct legal test in substance, a judgment will not be struck down merely for lacking a concluding checklist (Hirtie at §64).
• Witness credibility can suffice without expert evidence. Findings about the psychological impact of separation may properly rest on accepted witness testimony alone (Hirtie at §67).

The case is a useful, moderately short illustration of how tightly the appellate courts are now enforcing the “principal controversial issues” discipline established in Lata — a discipline that applies as much to the Home Office as to any other litigant.

Matthew Howarth is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row.

The Supreme Court prioritises substance over form in protecting the welfare of children in an immigration context. Explicit reference to guidance is neither sufficient nor necessary.  

15 November 2024 by Guest Contributor

In their co-authored judgment, Lord Sales and Dame Siobhan Keegan provide a rich analysis of how the courts should consider the welfare of children in an immigration context. In doing so, they clarify the meaning and effect of Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“Section 55”) and its interaction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“Article 8”). The judgment provides a guide for how the appellate courts should assess decision-making by the Secretary of State, her officials, and the First-tier Tribunal. 

The Illegal Migration Act and its inevitable fate in Northern Ireland: Re NIHRC & JR295’s applications for judicial review

28 May 2024 by anuragdeb

Let us turn to NIHRC and JR295’s applications for judicial review [2024] NIKB 35, in which the High Court disapplied sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) – the Government’s flagship statute to tackle illegal migration – in Northern Ireland. It is important to understand why, despite some alarming reactions to the judgment, it was both foreseen and avoidable – and why the alarm should be sounded in the Houses of Parliament instead.

James Robottom: The Safety of Rwanda Act, Slavery and the Common Law

6 May 2024 by Guest Contributor

The following piece was first published on the UK Constitutional Law Blog on 25 April 2024 and is reproduced here with their permission, for which the editors are grateful

This post argues that, read in the light of the common law constitutional prohibition of slavery (“POS”), s.4 should prevent all suspected and confirmed victims of slavery from being removed against their will to Rwanda without, at the least, a detailed assessment of their specific risks of re-trafficking there.

Court of Appeal upholds challenge to Rwanda removals policy – an extended look

19 July 2023 by Jonathan Metzer

R ((AAA) Syria and Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 745

The Claimants in this case are 10 individual asylum-seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania who entered the UK irregularly by crossing the English Channel in small boats, together with one charity, Asylum Aid.

Unpublished policy and unlawful detention: a case note on R (MXK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

29 June 2023 by Lance Baynham

In R (MXK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1272 (Admin), the Administrative Court held that:

1. the repeated detention of the claimants – foreign nationals with limited leave to remain – when they returned to the UK from travelling abroad, so that they could be questioned about their NHS debts, was unlawful;
2. the policy pursuant to which the claimants were detained (the “Policy”) was unlawful because it contained a positive statement of law which was wrong or, alternatively, because it failed to provide a full account of the legal position;
3. the Policy was unlawful because it was unpublished; and
4. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) was in breach of the public sector equality duty (“PSED”) under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010.

In reality, the facts carried the day. This was true not only in relation to the unlawful detention issue, but also on some other points – for example, the SSHD failed to evidence any public interest in not publishing the Policy or any consideration given to the equality impacts of the exercise of the relevant powers of detention. Insofar as there are lessons to be learned, they are likely to be found in the criticisms levelled at the evidence (or lack thereof) provided by the SSHD.

Cases of the Year: 2022

5 January 2023 by Jasper Gold

The year passed was, unsurprisingly, another year of tumult and surprise, something that by now registers as the norm rather than an aberration. Even so, 2022 must be a standout year – even by recent standards. From Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the collapse of two consecutive Tory governments, dramatic election results around the world from Israel to Brazil, and in the run up to the festive season a football World Cup as mired in human rights controversy as in any sporting event can be, 2022 was not a quiet year. 

Nor did the legal world disappoint. On the Parliamentary side of things, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab’s controversial Bill of Rights Bill continues to clunk through Parliament, and other bills with interesting human rights implications have had their moment in the sun as well. To take but one example, the Online Safety Bill, whose controversial but central parts dealing with ‘legal but harmful’ speech were removed recently, is yet to become law after extensive reform following criticisms based on freedom of expression.

But the focus of this post is not on Parliament, or politics in general, but on the highlights of 2022 in the Courts. So with no further ado and in no particular order, the cases which (in the completely impartial and objective joint opinion of the co-editors of this blog) have defined 2022 are:

Divisional Court upholds Government’s Rwanda policy – an extended look

20 December 2022 by Jonathan Metzer

R ((AAA) Syria and Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3230 (Admin)

On 14^th April of this year, the then-Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced a new ‘Migration and Economic Development Partnership’ between the UK Government and the Government of Rwanda to enable the removal of certain persons to who enter the UK to claim asylum (particularly those who arrive in small boats crossing the English Channel) to Rwanda, where – if their claims succeeded – they would be resettled.

Yesterday, the Divisional Court (Lewis LJ and Swift J) held that, in principle, the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda was consistent with the Refugee Convention and other legal obligations on the government, including those imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the Court also held that Home Secretary had failed to properly consider the circumstances of eight individual claimants to decide whether there was anything which meant that their asylum claim should be determined in the UK or they should not be relocated to Rwanda. Therefore, the decisions in those cases were set aside and referred back to the Home Secretary for her to consider afresh.

The Court’s judgment is detailed and addresses a number of issues. In this post, the focus will be on the general challenge made to removal to Rwanda in principle and what can be expected in the (likely) event that this aspect of the case is appealed further.

Painful lessons about the duty of candour (more on the unlawful seizure of migrants’ mobiles) 

21 November 2022 by Marina Wheeler QC

In an earlier post, we reported the Divisional Court’s eye-catching ruling that a blanket policy to seize and download data from migrants’ phones was unlawful: R (HM, MA and KH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin).

In this first Judgment, the Court analysed powers granted by the Immigration Acts 1971 and 2016 and rejected the Defendant’s erroneous interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. It then made consequential orders (also reported) including steps to publicise its ruling, given that over 400 phones, still held, could not be linked to any individual migrant.

A second Judgment (delivered on 14 October 2022) was recently published ([2022] EWHC 2729 (Admin)). This Judgment addresses the question “how did this happen?” How did the Defendant come to operate an unlawful policy and why was its existence initially denied, leading the Defendant to breach her duty of candour within the proceedings?

The small boats storm and the unlawful seizure of mobile phones

4 November 2022 by Marina Wheeler QC

The storm raging around small boats arriving on the south coast has been brewing for some time. In early summer the focus was a policy to send arrivals to Rwanda. Intervention by the European Court of Human Rights effectively suspended flights while a domestic ruling on the policy’s legality is awaited. Meanwhile, in Dover a migrant processing centre has been firebombed, another is dangerously overcrowded, and the new Home Secretary raises tensions by speaking of an “invasion”.

Amidst this swirl is an eye-catching Divisional Court Decision about a secret and unlawful Home Office policy to seize and download data from the mobile phones of all those arriving in small boats. The substantive Judgment in R (HM, MA and KH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin) was delivered on 25 March 2022, followed by an Order distilling the Court’s conclusions on 18 October 2022. 

Supreme Court Confirms Correct Approach to Deportation Cases

6 September 2022 by Jonathan Metzer

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v HA (Iraq) [2022] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the Court of Appeal was right to reject the idea that, when assessing whether it would be unduly harsh (and therefore disproportionate) for a person to be deported from the UK, the degree of harshness that would arise from this should be assessed by reference to a comparison with that which would ‘necessarily’ be involved for any child faced with the deportation of a parent. The Court also provided useful guidance concerning the application of the test for whether there are very compelling circumstances rendering deportation disproportionate in a given case.

Local authority age assessments considered in R (HAM) v Brent LBC

22 August 2022 by Guest Contributor

This decision, handed down by Swift J in the High Court, concerns the requirements for fairness in local authority age assessments for asylum seekers and the correct approach to be adopted.

Facts

The claimant, a Sudanese national, arrived in the UK on 21 May 2021 and made an application for asylum, claiming to be 17 years old. The local authority did not believe the claimant to be a child and assessed him to be 23 years old. The claimant was provided with initial accommodation in the area of the local authority. Social workers employed by the local council also assessed the claimant as being 23 years old. The claimant’s legal representatives on two occasions complained about the local authority’s decision, firstly levelling several criticisms of the way the age assessment process had been conducted and then enclosing additional evidence in respect of the claimant’s age and requesting a reconsideration, which the local authority rejected.

The “unduly harsh” test considered further by Court of Appeal

13 April 2022 by casparlatham

The question of how to determine whether or not the deportation of a foreign national convicted of criminal offending is a disproportionate interference in the family life that they may share with their partner or child has been explored in a series of cases, including the leading decisions of KO (Nigeria) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 53 and HA (Iraq) [2020] EWCA Civ 1176 and has been discussed in detail on this blog here, here and here.

Brook House Inquiry: Phase 1 Hearings Reviewed – Appin Mackay-Champion

6 January 2022 by Guest Contributor

‘A bleak, poorly staffed, highly charged and toxic environment.’ (Callum Tulley)

The Brook House inquiry has recently concluded its first phase of hearings which took place between November 23 and December 10, 2021 at the International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC). Brook House is an Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) beside Gatwick Airport, originally managed by the private security company G4S. The inquiry was set up to investigate the actions and circumstances surrounding the ‘mistreatment’ of male detainees at Brook House between April 1 to August 31 2017, and specifically, examining whether the treatment experienced was contrary to Article 3 ECHR (the right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment). This followed the damning footage filmed by an undercover reporter in Brook House during the ‘relevant period’, and broadcast on the BBC Panorama Programme ‘Undercover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets’ which aired on September 4, 2017. 

Background

Callum Tulley was employed by Brook House from January 2015 as a detention custody officer. In this role he witnessed the disturbing culture and conduct of employees there and raised these concerns by email to the BBC Panorama team in January 2016. After a 14 – month period providing intelligence and completing specialist training, Tulley began to secretly film 109 hours of footage over a three-month period – the contents of which exposed the degrading treatment of detainees by employees. 

Supreme Court considers asylum claim decided under quashed fast track rules

26 October 2021 by Jasper Gold

In 2015, the Court of Appeal found that the fast-track procedure rules for appeals against the refusal of some types of asylum claim (the FTR) was “structurally unfair, unjust and ultra vires” (R (Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2015] EWCA Civ 840; [2015] 1 WLR 5341, known as DA6). The Court of Appeal quashed the FTR because this structural unfairness “created a risk that the applicants would have inadequate time to obtain advice, marshall their evidence and properly present their cases”, which “created an unacceptable risk of unfairness in a significant number of cases”.

Six years later, the question in R (on the application of TN (Vietnam)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 41 was straightforward: where a decision had been taken under the FTR, should it also be quashed, or must the person who was subject to the decision demonstrate that the decision itself was unfair, rather than merely issuing from an unfair system?

The High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court all answered unequivocally that structural unfairness was not enough to quash an individual decision. Unfairness on the facts had to be found, or the decision would stand.

Background and Decisions Below

TN had, as the court acknowledged, a complicated procedural history, involving a number of applications for asylum, all of which (of those which had been determined at the time of trial) had been rejected. In hearings in those applications, TN had been represented by counsel. However, successive decisionmakers found TN’s claim not to be credible, and on 22 August 2014, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) rejected her appeal. It was this rejection, decided as it was by a tribunal following the procedural rules in the FTR, which TN sought to challenge in this case.

One reason TN’s evidence was not believed was that it was inconsistent, giving different dates at different times for her mother’s death, and changing the basis of her application for asylum without explaining fully the reasons for the changes. This raised a question plainly discussed, but in the end not legally consequential, of the approach taken to evidence of trafficking, given that trafficking victims frequently change their stories, partly because they will often not know (in terms) that this is what they are (see paragraphs [22]-[24]).

In a detailed judgment, Ouseley J rejected TN’s application, upholding the Tribunal’s decision. His judgment involved a detailed review of the history of TN’s case, after which he concluded that the Tribunal’s decision was not tainted by the structural unfairness of the FTR.

In the Court of Appeal, Singh LJ gave the leading judgment (with whom Sharp and Peter Jackson LLJ agreed), holding that the “fundamental reason” that the application had to fail was that there was “a conceptual distinction between holding that the procedural rules were ultra vires and the question whether the procedure in an individual appeal decision was unfair”.

The legal lens through which this fundamental conceptual distinction found expression was the principle of jurisdiction. Singh LJ considered two bases on which the FTT could fail to have jurisdiction, rejecting both. First, he held that the ultra vires nature of the FTR did not divest the FTT of jurisdiction in the “pure and narrow sense” of having “the legal authority to decide a question”. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction was not created by the FTR but rather by statute; the FTR was “merely a rule which regulates procedure and form”.

The second basis on which the Tribunal might have lost jurisdiction was in the “post-Anisminic understanding of jurisdiction … that a body has acted in a way which is unlawful, including (for this purpose) in a way which is procedurally unfair”. This too was rejected: the Tribunal had not acted in such a way; even though the FTR had created a structural risk that it might, that risk had not eventuated.

Singh LJ went on to set out four factors which the court should take into account when the fairness of an individual decision made under the FTR was challenged on the basis of unfairness. These were, paraphrasing: (1) a high degree of fairness is required in the context of asylum applications; (2) the FTR created an unacceptable risk of unfairness in a significant number of cases; (3) there is no presumption that the procedure in any one case was fair or unfair and what is necessary is a causal link between the risk of unfairness created by the FTR and what happened in a particular case; and (4) the finality of litigation is important, and as such delay is relevant, as are questions as to what steps were taken, and how quickly, to adduce evidence later relied on.