Dhillon v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE FOX,LORD JUSTICE BINGHAM |
| Judgment Date | 18 March 1987 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1987] EWCA Civ J0126-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 87/0041 |
| Date | 18 March 1987 |
[1987] EWCA Civ J0126-2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL. CIVIL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice,
The Master of the Rolls
(Sir John Donaldson)
Lord Justice Fox,
and
Lord Justice Bingham.
87/0041
Case No. CO 1613.
MR E. COTRAN (instructed by Messrs Singh & Choudry) appeared on behalf of the applicant.
MR J. LAWS (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the respondent.
This is a somewhat unusual application and I ought to say a word about the facts.
Mr Dhillon originally came to this country in March 1985, applying to enter on the grounds that he wished to attend his cousin's wedding. The Immigration Officer, faced with that application, was not satisfied that that was the true purpose of his wishing to come here, but he was granted temporary admission. It is important, of course, to remember that temporary admission only arises where leave to enter has been refused. It is, perhaps, an unfortunate term in the circumstances, but he was allowed into this country for a short period without prejudice to the Immigration Officer's decision to refuse leave to enter. He used his opportunities well in the sense that he instantly fell in love with a lady who was settled in this country, married her and a pregnancy followed almost as quickly. Nevertheless, he did leave the country for India at the end of July 1985, some three or four months after he had been granted that temporary admission.
He now tells us that during his short stay in India he soon realised that the Police were brutally treating members of an organisation of which he was a member. However, he returned to this country on 8th December and again applied for leave to enter, this time in order to be with his wife during her forthcoming confinement, which was expected on 6th February 1986. There was an indication that if he was allowed in for that purpose he would then take the wife and baby back to India—which is a little surprising in view of the brutality the nature and character of which he had learned on his visit to India. But there it was. Not altogether surprisingly the Immigration Officer was not satisfied with his explanation but, again, he succeeded in obtaining temporary admission without prejudice to the second refusal of leave to enter.
He was told in April that that temporary admission would be terminated and he was required to return to India on 21st April. Thereupon, on the 18th April (three days before he was due to leave) he applied to stay, or, technically, to "enter" this country on the basis of being entitled to asylum. Asylum, it will be remembered, is dealt with in paragraph 73 of the House of Commons' paper in the following terms: "Special considerations arise where the only country to which a person could be removed is one to which he is unwilling to go owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". So Mr Dhillon was saying that he was in that category in relation to India and ought not to be asked to leave this country for India.
Faced with that application the Home Office extended his temporary admission and investigated his claim for asylum. He was interviewed at Heathrow on the 9th May and after, really, quite a long period of gestation the Home Office came to the conclusion that his claim for asylum was without merit, and have so stated. That must involve that he has no well-founded fear of being persecuted for any of the reasons to which I have referred. They then put into effect what is said to be the normal practice in such matters, namely, they asked the United Kingdom Immigrants' Advisory Service whether it wished to make representations upon the applicant's behalf. Mr Cotran, who has appeared for the applicant, says that that was quite unreasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Turkoglu
...Justice Lawton expressed doubts, but no more. By contrast on this occasion it is a matter for a decision. 6 That case was followed by In re Dhillon (Times report, 28th January, 1987). It was a decision by myself Lord Justice Fox and Lord Justice Bingham. The headnote reads: "Where a High Co......
-
Kemper Reinsurance Company v Minister of Finance and Registrar of Companies 1997 Civil Appeal No. 3
...Lts.ELR [1981] AC 374 Whitehouse v Board of ControlWLR [1960] 1 WLR 1093 Dhillon v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK (1988) 86 Cr.App.R. 14 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte TrukogluELR [1988] 1 QB 398 R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission ex parte Argyll G......
-
Kemper Reinsurance Company v Minister of Finance et Al
...of an original jurisdiction. But the explanations of the jurisdiction in the cases are by no means consistent. In Dhillon v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1988) 86 Cr. App. R. 14 Sir John Donaldson M.R., who had been party to the Practice Direction already mentioned, discussed......
-
Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General and another matter
...the same point in two cases. In the English Court of Criminal Appeal decision of Dhillon v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1988) 86 CrAppR 14 (at 17) (“Dhillon”), he opined as follows: On the other hand, this Court has a special jurisdiction in judicial review matters—the origin......