Awuku (No.2) and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 3690 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/12086/2012 CO/11272/2012 |
| Date | 10 December 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 3690 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Sir John Thomas
(President of the Queen's Bench Division)
Mr Justice Cranston
CO/12086/2012
CO/10583/2012
CO/11272/2012
Mr O Ayanru (Jesuis Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the First Claimant
Mr J Arsenic (instructed by AK Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Third Claimant
Miss C McGahey appeared on behalf of the Defendant
THE PRESIDENT: Today this court is looking at cases where applications are made on an ex parte basis, but where the rules of the court and professional obligations of the lawyers have not been complied with.
There are three cases that we wish to consider, but there are two general observations that need to be set out first.
(a) Compliance with professional obligations
At the outset it seems to us important to point out that it has always been the professional obligation of solicitors and counsel, when renewing applications or making applications on an ex parte basis, to satisfy themselves that the claim being advanced is one that they can properly make. This is particularly important and the onus on counsel and solicitors is high.
Recent additions have been made to the forms used by this court, because it appeared that that professional obligation was not being followed. The forms now require the lawyers to certify (1) on a renewal that the reasons for the refusal of permission as totally without merit have been considered and that the claim is properly arguable, and (2) on an application out of hours that the application is in compliance with professional obligations. It should have been wholly unnecessary for this court to have so specified in its forms because it has long been accepted that renewed applications and ex parte applications should not be made in cases that are not properly arguable.
(b) The need for scrutiny by qualified lawyers
We would also observe that the applications to the court on an ex parte basis must be scrutinised diligently and carefully by qualified lawyers for the reasons we give in the third case, Awuku. It is not sufficient for an application to be made by a case worker without scrutiny by a qualified lawyer.
Bashir
In the first case (Bashir), information has been provided to us by a solicitor that the position taken eventuated from the way in which counsel had drafted matters. In the circumstances, it would not be right or fair to proceed with the hearing in the absence of counsel. We shall therefore ask that the matter be re-listed as soon as convenient so we can deal with it. It is a great pity that the matters that were going to be raised were not notified to the court in advance.
T and T
That is in contrast to one of the cases that is before us today, a case to which I shall refer to as T and T. The claimants were both Tamils from Sri Lanka. They made asylum applications in France, then went on to the UK and made further claims. The Secretary of State certified the claims earlier this year on third country grounds. The claimants applied for interim relief. That was considered by Haddon-Cave J, who dismissed the application as totally without merit. The removal was stayed by Cox J that same day on two bases —one relating to the family links policy, and the other to an argument under Article 15 of the Dublin Convention.
The matter then came to be considered on the papers by Swift J. She refused permission on the basis it was totally without merit. She pointed out that the claim under Article 15 of the Dublin Convention was misconceived. No dissent is expressed from that view. When a further application was subsequently made for interim relief to Cranston J, that ground was not pursued. It is not necessary for us to enquire into why that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...court will not hesitate to refer those concerned to the Solicitors Regulation Authority." 2 In subsequent decisions Awuku (No 2) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3690 (Admin) and B & J v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3770 (Admin), Sir John id......