Published: 9th August 2018 In July, PLP intervened in the Upper Tribunal case of R(Bahadori & Rahimi) v SSHD, a judicial review of the Home Office’s removal window policy. The Applicants are represented by Duncan Lewis Solicitors – read their press release here. PLP has a longstanding interest in whether Home Office removal policies respect an individual’s constitutional right of access to the court. In 2010, PLP acted for the Claimant in the landmark Medical Justice case, a judicial review of the Home Office’s policy of providing little or no notice of removal to individuals in certain specified categories, by way of exception to the standard 72-hour notice period for removal directions. The High Court, in a judgment subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal, quashed that policy as an unconstitutional abrogation of the right of access to the court. Since Medical Justice, PLP has continued to monitor the Home Office’s removal policies. Bahadori & Rahimi is a judicial review to the Home Office’s policy of bypassing the notice requirements by the use of a “removal window” and only allowing short notice periods to bring a challenge to removal, following which individuals may be removed without any further notice. PLP intervened in this case as we consider the policy to violate the right of access to the court. We have developed a significant body of evidence on how the policy operates, having represented three clients who were unlawfully removed under the policy, which we were able to place before the Upper Tribunal. PLP’s barristers were Charlotte Kilroy of Doughty Street Chambers and Alison Pickup, PLP’s Legal Director, and our solicitor Rakesh Singh who has led our work on notice of removal since 2014. Our intervention and work on removal windows has been generously supported by grants from the Strategic Legal Fund for Vulnerable Young Migrants and Unbound Philanthropy.