Key Facts
- •Claimant applied for Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) compensation on June 21, 2019, which was refused.
- •The refusal was based on the Claimant lacking lawful status in the UK between July 29, 2004, and April 17, 2019.
- •Claimant's indefinite leave to remain lapsed on July 29, 2004, due to a two-year absence.
- •His leave to enter was refused on March 2, 2005, due to the lapsed leave and possession of cannabis.
- •Claimant had a history of convictions for various offenses in the UK and Jamaica.
- •The Claimant's removal from the UK in December 2006 was contested; the court found it was an administrative removal, not deportation.
- •His deportation order was revoked in March 2019, and he was granted indefinite leave to enter in April 2019.
- •The Claimant's WCS application contained inconsistencies and unreliable information.
Legal Principles
Interrelation between exemption from deportation, indefinite leave to enter/remain, and lawful status for WCS purposes.
Immigration Act 1971, sections 1, 7, 33; Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000; Immigration Rules 18, 19; WCS Rules
Requirements for granting leave to enter under Immigration Rules 18 and 19.
Immigration Rules 18, 19; Home Office guidance; case law (R(ex p Harris), R(C1) v Secretary of State)
Grounds for refusing entry clearance or leave to enter (paragraph 320 of HC 395).
Paragraph 320 of HC 395; case law (R(Balajigari))
Definition of 'lawful status' under the WCS.
WCS Rules Part 1.5
Standard of review for judicial review (Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981).
Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981
Approach to fact-finding in judicial review.
Case law (R(F) v Surrey CC)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Claimant did not have lawful status for the purposes of the WCS during the relevant period. His detriments were not caused by an inability to demonstrate lawful status, but rather by other factors.