Ansari v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Davis |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Civ 288 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 21 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C2/2015/1634 |
[2017] EWCA Civ 288
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Davis
Case No: C2/2015/1634
B. Bundock (instructed by Londonium Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
This is an application seeking permission to appeal against a previous decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing permission to apply for judicial review. The actual decision in question of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was issued in December 2013. The matter eventually came before the Upper Tribunal orally in April 2015 and yet this renewed application for permission to appeal, after refusal by the single Lord Justice on the papers, only comes before this court in February 2017, a lamentable delay indeed, although that is in no way to be attributed simply to the applicant. However, that is the position as it is today and this court has to consider whether there is an arguable case that the Upper Tribunal judge erred in law in refusing to grant permission to apply for judicial review.
I will not set out the background details in this judgment. They are fully recorded and discussed elsewhere. The first challenge sought to be made by Mr Bundock on behalf of the applicant is as to the Secretary of State's assessment of the truthfulness of the applicant's claim to be a Bihari. It is said that the reasons contained in the decision letter in that regard were flawed and that the Upper Tribunal Judge should have so found. It is, amongst other criticisms, said that certain matters are relied upon which were never even put, so it is said, to the applicant at interview and overall the decision in this regard is one that, at least arguably, cannot be sustained.
Insofar as the statement of interview is concerned, the Upper Tribunal Judge pointed out that that had not been produced before him or at least one aspect of the interview record, even though the applicant was represented by counsel (not Mr Bundock) at that stage. Today attached to...
To continue reading
Request your trial