During the week of 10 April 2006, the UK court ruled that the laws enacted to curb sham marriages were unfair.  This page contains extracts from the media reaction.  Each extract is accompanied by a link leading to the full article.

 

To return to the main site, click here:   Transpondia's main page

Oxfordshire's Registration Service fears there will be more arrests on the steps of Oxford register office, after the High Court ruled tough new rules on sham marriages discriminate against immigrants.

During 2004, eight men and one woman were arrested in Oxford and deported for attempting to marry to stay in the country. A further 40 were investigated. Registrars also helped immigration services uncover a sham marriage syndicate.

Since February 2005, people born outside the EU who have only six months permission to be in the UK had to seek special permission from the Home Office to wed if they were marrying outside of the Anglican church.

Only 76 selected register offices, including Oxford, could deal with the proposed marriage. Following the introduction of the rules, the number of weddings in the county fell by 20 per cent, including a significant drop in the number of notices from foreign nationals.

Suspect marriages reported by registrars in England and Wales fell from 3,578 in 2004 to just 247 last year.

However, on Monday, High Court judge Mr Justice Silber said the rules breached Human Rights legislation.

New Home Office rules intended to put an end to "sham marriages" involving immigrants have been declared incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The High Court verdict could affect hundreds of people from overseas wanting to marry in the UK.

The case was brought by couples including Mahmoud Baiai, 34, a Muslim from Algeria, and Izabela Trzcinska, 26, a Polish Roman Catholic.

It was the first case to come before the English courts raising issues under Article 12 of the ECHR, which protects the right to marry and found a family.

Mr Baiai and Ms Trzcinska were banned from marrying in the UK under the 2004 Asylum and Immigration Act because Mr Baiai was an illegal immigrant.

The rules were brought in following an outcry that "marriages of convenience" were being used to get round immigration controls.

But, under the Act, the couple would have been allowed to marry if they were members of the Church of England (CoE).

Today Mr Justice Silber declared the new rules discriminated against immigrants on grounds of religion and nationality.

He also ruled there was "no adequate justification" for them being used as a means of immigration control.

The judge pointed out the reasons for treating Anglican marriages differently - that sufficient steps were taken to ensure CoE marriages were not marriages of convenience aimed at getting round immigration controls - did not just apply to the CoE.

 

NEW rules designed to clamp down on "sham marriages" unfairly discriminate against immigrants on religious grounds, it was ruled today.

The High Court decision could pave the way for hundreds of people from overseas to get married in the UK.

The new Home Office rules were introduced to clamp down on "marriages of convenience" to get round immigration controls and require immigrants to obtain a special "certificate of approval", or COA, before they can wed in the UK.

Those refused a COA must to go abroad to marry, which immigrants argue is either impossible, too costly or places them in danger.

But the rules do not apply to Church of England members, even if they are illegally in the UK.

Mr Justice Silber, sitting at the High Court in London, declared the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because they discriminated against immigrants subject to immigration control on grounds of religion and nationality.

The case raised issues under Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to marry and found a family.

Today the judge pointed out the reasons for treating Anglican marriages differently - that sufficient steps were taken to ensure CoE marriages were not marriages of convenience aimed at getting round immigration controls - did not just apply to the CoE.

He said other faiths, including Islam and Hinduism, and also other
denominations of the Christian church took steps to ensure marriages were not bogus.

The new rules were introduced under the 2004 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act.

Lawyers for immigrants caught by the rules argued the Government was guilty of religious discrimination and unlawfully interfering with one of the most fundamental rights of all - the rights of couples to marry when their relationships were genuine and not a sham.

Changes to marriage laws introduced by the UK Home Office have been overturned by Mr Justice Silber, sitting at the High Court in London. The judge declared the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The marriage laws were introduced to clamp down on "marriages of convenience" to get around immigration controls and require immigrants to obtain a special certificate of approval, or COA before they can wed in the UK.

The rules introduced February 2005, mean people born outside the EU and some bordering European nations who have only 6 months stay in the UK, must seek special permission from the Home Office to marry, irrespective of the status of their partner.

The rules do not apply to Church of England members, even if they are illegally in the UK.

The overturning of the marriage laws due to unfair discrimination against immigrants on religious grounds leaves the door open for hundreds of people from overseas getting married in the UK.

UK Home SAffairs Minister Charles Clarke suffered a severe blow in the High Court yesterday to his restrictions on non-EU nationals marrying. For over a year Mr. Clarke has been refusing many couples permission to marry because one or both of them had less than six months leave to remain in the UK.

Three couples who were refused permission to marry by the Home Secretary sought legal action. Yesterday the High Court heard arguments that in refusing their marriage applications, the Minister had infringed their right to family life.

In his judgement Justice Silber ruled that the Home Secretary had been irrational in allowing marriages where one of the couples was subject to immigration controls to take place with out restriction in Anglican ceremonies but not in those of all other faiths. In doing so the Minister was clearly discriminating on grounds of nationality and religion and therefore breaching Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to marry and found a family. The rules were being used as a form of immigration control and completely with out justification.

Speaking after the ruling, Amit Sachdev representing one of the couples said: "This once again shows the Government's abject failure to respect the human rights of immigrants. This Act which brought in these rules was a knee-jerk reaction based on speculation rather than evidence. The House of Lords complained that the Act had not received proper parliamentary scrutiny. By this judgment, their concerns have proved correct."

Richard Drabble, barrister for the couples said: "It is more difficult to imagine a more fundamental right than the right to marry in accordance with one's fundamental cultural requirements and to found a family."

Home Office made money from inflicting misery:

"Each application to the Home Secretary for permission to marry cost �135 per person. According to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, between February 2005 (when the new rule came info effect) and the end of August, the Home Office received 7,201 such applications, creating just under �1,000,000 in revenue. NCADC wants to know if the couples who applied and were refused will be given their money back. We are concerned about some who complied with Home Office instructions to return to their country to apply from there for entry clearance back to the UK for the purposes of marriage. Some have returned to dangerous countries which they fled due to persecution and have not yet been able to return.

LONDON, April 10 (UPI) -- British immigration rules instituted to block so-called sham marriages by immigrants has been overturned by the nation's High Court.

The court, sitting in London, ruled Monday the provisions were in violation of Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting the right to marry.

The Evening Standard reported that it said there was "no adequate justification" for the Home Office rules to be used as a method of immigration control and that the rules were a form of discrimination.

The nub of the ruling centered on the application of the immigration rules, which were part of the 2004 Asylum and Immigration Act. As written, marriages between a legal immigrant to Britain and an illegal alien cannot be performed in the United Kingdom with one exception -- a marriage performed in the official Church of England, since it is presumed the church adequately screens couples to ensure the marriage would not be a sham to gain legal residency.

The provision was challenged by a number of couples, including Mahmoud Baiai, an Algerian Muslim, and Izabela Trzcinska, a Polish Roman Catholic and legal resident of Britain. Their application for marriage was turned down by authorities last year because of Baiai's legal status.

UK-Sham Marriage Law
New government rules intended to clamp down on "sham marriages" involving immigrants have been declared incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The High Court in London ruled Monday that the rules, introduced last year, were discriminatory against immigrants, who were subject to immigration control, on grounds of religion and nationality.

The judge, Mr Justice Silber, said that there was "no adequate justification" for them being used as a means of immigration control.

The case, which potentially affects hundreds of foreigners in the UK wanting to marry, was brought by Mahmoud Baiai, a Muslim from Algeria, and Izabela Trzcinska, a Polish Roman Catholic, who were banned from marrying in the UK as Baiai was an illegal immigrant.

It was the first case to come before the English courts raising issues under Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to marry and found a family.

It was found that if the couple were members of the Church of England, they could not have been stopped from getting wed, as the rules do not apply to the UK's state church.

The Home Office said the government was "disappointed", but pointed out that the judge granted permission to appeal. As it stands, it would mean that new laws would have to be introduced.

The rules, introduced in February 2005, meant people born outside the EU and some bordering European nations, must seek special permission from the Home Office to marry, irrespective of the status of their partner.

If applications to marry were refused by the Home Secretary, there is no right of appeal, other than to apply to the High Court.

New Home Office rules designed to stop immigrants getting married so they can stay in the UK have today been ruled in breach of human rights legislation.

High court judge Mr Justice Silber said a new law forcing immigrants to seek special permission before marrying in the UK were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

However, the Home Office said it was "disappointed" by the ruling, insisting the law had been successful in cutting down the number of suspected marriages of convenience, and said it was considering appealing.

Under the 2004 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act, which came into force in February, non-EU residents have to seek special permission from a registry office to marry, unless they are members of the Church of England.

If they do not get permission, in the form of a certificate of approval (CoA), they have to wed abroad. The law also requires registrars who suspect a marriage is for immigration reasons to alert the Home Office.

Today's case was brought by Mahmoud Baiai, 31, a Muslim from Algeria, and Izabela Trzcinska, a 26-year-old Polish Roman Catholic, who were banned from marrying in the UK because Mr Baiai was an illegal immigrant.

They challenged the 2004 act under article 12 of the ECHR, which protects the right to marry and found a family, but in the end the judge found the new rules discriminated against immigrants on the grounds of religion and nationality.