Britain's tough new law to prevent immigration via 'sham-marriages' was struck down by the London High Court earlier this month, on the grounds that it discriminated against individuals on grounds of nationality and religion.

'Sham marriages' are a renowned method of bypassing immigration control for young men wanting to move to Britain to live and work. The law, enacted in February 2005, was created to combat sham marriages by requiring non-EU immigrants who were in the UK for limited stay to gain special permission from the Home Office if they wished to marry. These rules did not apply to individuals undergoing a Church of England marriage ceremony or who were European Union citizens.

Campaigners had opposed the law, saying that it did not make a distinction between genuine and sham marriages and sought to tar all non-E.U. nationals who applied for marriage as potential fraudsters. Lawyers for immigrants caught by the rules had argued that 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. The case was the first to be presented before the English courts on grounds of violation of Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to marry and found a family.

The case was brought by Mohmoud Baiai, from Algeria, and Izabela Trzcinska, from Poland, who were banned from marrying in England because Mr Baiai was in the country illegally. But if Mr Baiai and Ms Trzcinska had been members of the Church of England the Government could not have stopped them marrying.

Mr Justice Silber declared the new rules discriminated against immigrants on grounds of religion and nationality, and that the reasons for treating Church of England marriages differently were unfounded. It was argued by the government that sufficient steps were taken to ensure Church of England marriages were not sham marriages of convenience. But the judge refuted this saying that other faiths also took steps to ensure marriages were not bogus.

Analysts have said that the Act had not received proper scrutiny. The principle of a law to combat sham marriages is fine in itself, but the hasty ill-thought out law has proven to be unfair in its application and has proven embarrassing for the government.

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT / DISCUSS