- Explained — U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2023-07-14
“… Act’) read in its context, and on a correct understanding of two decisions, in particular: Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 29; [2003] 1 AC 153 (‘Rehman’) and Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 7; [2022] AC 765 (‘Begum’). Rehman did not concern section 2B. As I will explain,…”
- Cited — Waltham Forest London Borough Council v Nasim Hussain & Ors 2023-06-26
“…Mr Underwood referred to the observations of Lord Hoffmann in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47, [2003] 1 AC 153 at [49]:…”
- Cited — QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-11-22
“… UKSC 7; [2021] AC 765. She quoted paragraphs 60 and 62 of Lord Reed’s judgment in Begum, in which he cited passages from the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153 (paragraphs 57 and 62). Even if the High Court preferred a different view of the facts, the institutional competence of the Secretary of State was a sound cons…”
- Cited — QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-11-22
“…’s approach to national security assessments by the Secretary of State is also governed by the reasoning in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153 (paragraphs 51-62). Rehman does not appear to have been cited to this Court in MB.…”
- Cited — Campaign Against Arms Trade, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for International Trade 2019-06-20
“… 455 at [51], R (Lord Carlile) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] AC 945 at [32] and [88], Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153 at [50] and [57], A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68 at [29], Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2014] AC 700 at [93] and Harrow Community S…”
- Cited — Jones v Birmingham City Council 2018-05-23
“… as far back as In re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563 repeated in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47 [2003] 1 AC 153 in which Lord Hoffmann observed (at [55]:…”