A long awaited legacy case has finally come out. Hakemi -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department 2012 was heard but as suspected we are still in the dark about lots of issues surrounding the legacy.
The judgement however provides us with some guidance as to the specific criteria on which applicants were being either granted or refused leave, for example it would seem case workers were being asked to look at whether a person was reporting, as well as length of residence and any representations made on the applicant's behalf. It seems that the legacy criteria played a small part in this aspect of the proceedings. The situation seems to be that the legacy criteria was being looked at in the context of both paragraph 395C as well as Chapter 53 guidance, both famously vague and leaving huge discretion to the decision maker. Currently we are involved in inconsistency arguments and there are other practitioners who deal with legal challenges to the specific parts of the legacy and the challenge to the Pankina type arguments.