Sarabjit Singh KC

Public Law

In public law, Sab appears in first-instance judicial reviews for both claimants and public bodies and also has vast appellate experience in the Court of Appeal, having appeared there dozens of times as sole counsel. He has acted in a number of complex cases, particularly where they interact with other areas he practices in. For example, he appeared as amicus in the Court of Appeal in the AR (Pakistan) case on immigration bail powers, has had numerous successful appearances in the Court of Appeal in human rights cases and appeared in the Supreme Court in the important constitutional case of Majera.

Selected Cases

• R (Majera) v SSHD [2021] UKSC 46, [2022] AC 461: Acted as lead counsel for the government in case on legality of acts inconsistent with a court order, described by the Supreme Court as a case of “constitutional importance”.
• Qadir, Abassi, Mohammed, Ali, Nasradin, Saedi and others v Home Office [2021-2023]: Acting as sole counsel for claimants in series of cases alleging false imprisonment against the Home Office for the detention of Dublin III returnees.
• YD (Algeria) v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 1683: Successfully resisted challenge by Appellant and UNHCR, brought in Court of Appeal on Refugee Convention and human rights grounds, to legality of Tribunal country guidance on the safety of Algeria for gay men.
• AL (Albania) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 950: Succeeded before the Court of Appeal in arguing the correct approach that a tribunal should take to findings made in a decision in a linked case.
• AS (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 873, [2019] 1 WLR 5345: Acted in major case in the Court of Appeal, with the UNHCR intervening, on the correct approach to be taken to the reasonableness of internal relocation. See also earlier decision of the Court of Appeal in the same case at [2019] EWCA Civ 208, [2019] 1 WLR 3065, where Sab succeeded in establishing that the Upper Tribunal had statutory and inherent powers to correct errors in the reasons for its decisions.
• R (Guled) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 92: Appeared before the Court of Appeal in a case concerning the implication of an Anisminic error of law in a deportation order.
• SSHD v Lucas [2018] EWCA Civ 2541: Succeeded in case in the Court of Appeal about the scope of FTT bail and the consequent effect on the legality of detention.
• R (Teh) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 1586 (Admin), [2018] 1 WLR 4327: Appeared as leading counsel for the Claimant in a judicial review claim in the Administrative Court and succeeded in arguing that a person with solely British Overseas Citizen status was stateless.
• IT (Jamaica) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 932, [2017] 1 WLR 240: Succeeded before the Court of Appeal on the question of the weight to be attached to the public interest, under the current immigration rules, when considering an appeal by a person who has already been deported against a refusal to revoke a deportation order.
• R (AR (Pakistan)) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 807, [2017] 1 WLR 255: Appeared as amicus curiae in the Court of Appeal in a case concerning the issue of whether the Chief Immigration Officer had the power to vary bail conditions imposed by an immigration tribunal.
• HD (Trafficked women) Nigeria (CG) [2016] UKUT 454 (IAC): Appeared in country guidance case before the Upper Tribunal on whether it was safe for Nigerian sex trafficking victims to be returned to Nigeria.
• OO (Gay Men) (CG) [2016] UKUT 65 (IAC): Appeared in country guidance case on the issue of whether gay men were generally at risk of persecution in Algeria.
• Sarfraz v Disclosure and Barring Service [2015] EWCA Civ 544, [2015] 1 WLR 4441: Appeared for claimant in Court of Appeal case on whether a right to appeal existed against a refusal of permission to appeal against the decision of a body that was not a tribunal of law.
• AA (Algeria) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1741 and Soares v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 575: Succeeded in two cases before the Court of Appeal on the correct application of Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC, which requires Member States to facilitate the entry and residence of “other family members” of European Union citizens.
• ZS (Jamaica) & Anor v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 1639: Successfully appeared in the Court of Appeal on case about whether a non-British child’s best interests required him and his mother to be permitted to remain in the UK.
• Bah (EO (Turkey) – liability to deport) Sierra Leone [2012] UKUT 196 (IAC): Succeeded in case before the President of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on whether police intelligence from anonymous sources was admissible in deportation appeals.
• AAO v Entry Clearance Officer [2011] EWCA Civ 840: Succeeded in the Court of Appeal on case about whether the positive duty on the part of the state to show respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR extends to the provision of financial support.
• AO (Iraq) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 1637: Successful in judicial review appeal to the Court of Appeal on the question of whether enforcement action taken against Iraqi nationals was contrary to the Secretary of State’s policy not to take such action against those belonging to countries which were ‘active war zones’.
• MK (Algeria) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 980: Acted in judicial review appeal to the Court of Appeal on the question of the appropriate level of damages to be awarded in cases of unlawful immigration detention.
• R (MC (Algeria)) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 347: Successfully defended judicial review challenge in the Court of Appeal to the lengthy detention, after his prison sentence had expired, of a man with mental health difficulties.
• MD (Jamaica) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 213: Successfully appeared in appeals to the Court of Appeal on the issue of the correct interpretation of the ‘long residence’ provisions in the Immigration Rules.
• CD (Jamaica) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 768: Succeeded in appeal before the Court of Appeal on the circumstances in which the Secretary of State should be permitted to withdraw a concession.
• Sanchez v SSHD [2009] EWHC 3233: Succeeded before Divisional Court in judicial review claim on whether returning a US citizen to the USA, where he claimed he would face a disproportionate prison sentence under California’s ‘three strikes and you’re out’ legislation, would breach Article 3 of the ECHR.