Nabila undertakes a broad range of Public Law and Human Rights challenges. She represented one of the five test cases on unlawful detention and the use of ‘secret’ Government policy in ‘Abdi and others’. She has brought challenges against Local Government Authorities, NHS Trust and Regulatory Bodies of Health Care professionals.
Nabila is passionate in representing her clients and has been involved in a number of publicised cases,
(i) Malik Madani (unlawful detention) Times 28th February 2007, (ii) A. Glanville- ‘Deportation trick ruled lawful’ BBC News and the Times 27/9/2005, (iii) M. King - ‘Judge bans asylum seeker from IVF course’, The Evening Standard 18th July 2005.
She recently obtained an injunction against the SSHD on behalf of a HE college, allowing 200 students to complete their course of study.
Notable Cases
BS v The United Kingdom Application no: 7935/09
The Claimant challenged her removal to a ‘Third Safe Country’ Greece on the grounds that it would be a breach Article 8- as she suffered psychiatric Injury in Greece and her young son also suffered psychiatric harm. The ECHR granted an Injunction against removal. The case was expedited and upon written submissions, prior to the hearing, the UK government conceded.
R (on the application of Ali Said Abdul) v SSHD CO/4577/10 AND CO/6469/10
15th June 2012
Kenneth Parker J granted release of FNP at an oral hearing after HH Thornton J granted permission observing that a detention of over 40 months without any prospect of deportation has succeeded what is permissible or acceptable.
R (on the application of) City Banking College v Secretary of State for Home Department [2012] EWCH 33 (interim relief)
This is a challenge to the SSHD’s application of policy and guidance to matters that regulate entry into the UK. The Claimant has been granted interim relief so that 200 foreign students could complete their studies.
Shukri Gjorgi R (on the application of) v SSHD
10th February 2010
obtained interim relief against the removal of an unaccompanied minor- Birth certificate contradicted LA report. Removal challenged on the basis that SSHD had not obtained information on reception facilities in Albania, Also challenged lawfulness of detention of minor. SSHD settled JR proceedings.
Nasire, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 3359 (Admin)
21 December 2010
The main issue was entitlement of right of appeal for further representations. A sub –issue was the legal effect of further representations that invoke Article 15c of the Qualitative Directive.
Brown, R (on the application v Secretary Of State for Home Department [2010] EWHC (CO/ )
Granted permission to move Judicial Review after lengthy oral hearing HH J Pearle to an application seeking to revoke the Deportation Order for drugs offence that carried a 14 year sentence on the grounds that he had a 13 children residing in the UK.
Whyte, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2010] EWHC 1818
The issue was whether there was a discretion to consider an extant application made one day out of time and validity of the application, if in there was such a discretion under the prescribed forms and procedures regulations.
Tor Halimi and Khalil Kandarhai, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2009] EWHC
13th Oct 2009
(Trancript available) relying on observation of HH Blake Jin Soorgul Ahmadzai, R (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for Home Department (CO/105522/2009) –‘it would appear to be unfair for some afghans who claim Article 15 protection to be removed whilst others who have legal representations and obtain judicial orders, are not.)’ Interim relief granted by Andrew Nicols J with observations on inconsistency of treatment of Afghan’s awaiting Country Guidance.
Rhoulia, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department (C/5008/2009)
The SSHD was challenged on the grounds of maladministration and a claim of damages was made for unnecessary wasted costs incurred by the Claimant in adjournments obtained by SSHD during the Tribunal appeal process. The SSHD settled for 3450.00 (The case was relied upon on other such challenges by Counsel).
Abdi and others, R (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2008] EWHC 3166 (represented one of the five test cases - Malik Madani
appealed to the court of appeal. The issue was the validity of a Government policy relating to the detention of FNPs pending their deportation from the United Kingdom. Whether a ‘Secret Policy’ was lawful.
Korkmaz, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2008] EWHC 950
The issue concerned the lawfulness of the detention of the claimant with a view to his removal as a failed asylum seeker in circumstances where, as of that date, there was in being an outstanding application.
Facraden, Abdallah, Fakish Nasih v SSHD [2006] EWHC
Each of the Claimant’s had signed voluntary return papers. The purposes of the detention is removal from the UK . The SSHD could not return the Claimants and could not say when it would be possible. HH Justice Collins declared that the detention was unlawful and ordered release of the Claimants.
R (on the application of Kitson Locke) v Secretary of State For HD (2005) Lawtel
The issue was whether the SSHD acted unlawfully in certifying the claim as clearly unfounded for a claim of family life between extended family members. The Claimant challenged removal on the grounds that he was dependent on extended family members.
R (on the application of Maimunatu King) v SSHD [2005] EWHC (CO/2243/05)
argued right to Private Life , Burnton J refused the application to remain in the UK to have IVF Treatment. Refused on the grounds that IVF is medical treatment.
R (on the application of Alrick Glanville) v SSHD [2005] EWHC
Moses J stated that a deportation trick was unlawful ie The Claimant was invited for an interview at HO and detained for removal without prior notice.
On the Application of S (Jamaica) v SSHD [2005] EWHC 1957 (All ER 204)
Anonymity Order in Asylum Cases - Fresh Evidence- requirements of entry.
R (on the application of Mr and Mrs Akbas) v London Borough of Hackney (1999) HC Lawtel
The issue was whether the Claimant had been made an offer of suitable accommodation under the Housing Act.
Awards
Barrister of the Year - Modern Law Awards 2020
Memberships
Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers
Immigration Lawyers and Practitioners Association
Qualifications
Nabila has a 2:1 LLB (Hons) (highest first in a final year paper) and LLM in Commercial and Corporate Law from University of London.
