![CA-2024-001818 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1273](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
The incentivising effect of allowing automatic family reunion
The incentivising effect of allowing automatic family reunion
I can deal with this much more shortly. If it was not irrational for the Secretary of State to believe that the phenomenon of anchor children was real and significant I do not believe that it can have been irrational to believe that making family reunion easier was liable to increase the number of children sent ahead in this way. No doubt the extent of that risk could only be assessed as a matter of judgement, but if anything that makes it more difficult to characterise the policy as irrational.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE POLICY
- THE OLD RULES AND GUIDANCE
- THE NEW RULES AND GUIDANCE
- SUMMARY OF THE POLICY
- THE EFFECT OF THE POLICY
- CRITICISM OF THE POLICY
- GROUND 1: SECTION 55 OF THE 2009 ACT
- THE EVOLUTION OF THE ISSUES BEFORE THE JUDGE
- The Issues as at the Start of the Hearing
- The Hearing
- The Post-Hearing Submissions
- THE APPEAL
- The Claimant’s Case
- The Secretary of State’s Response
- Discussion and Conclusion
- The Claimant’s Case
- The Secretary of State’s Case
- Discussion and Conclusion
- CONCLUSION ON GROUND 1
- GROUND 2: DISCRIMINATION
- LAVENDER J’s JUDGMENT
- THE ISSUES ON THE APPEAL
- DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
- The Secretary of State’s Case
- The Claimant’s Case
- Decision
- GROUND 3: IRRATIONALITY
- LIMB (iii): THE RATIONALITY OF THE POLICY
- Anchor children
- The incentivising effect of allowing automatic family reunion
- The balance of benefit and harm
- Mr Husain’s submissions
- Conclusion on limb (iii)
- LIMB (ii): FAILURE TO REVIEW
- Conclusions