Gaima v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1988 |
| Date | 06 December 1988 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
May, Croom-Johnson, Glidewell LJJ
I Macdonald QC for the appellant
D Pannick for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgments:
Re HK (an infant)ELRUNK [1967] 2 QB 617: [1967] 1 All ER 226.
Bugdaycay and ors v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentELR [1987] 1 AC 514: [1987] Imm AR 250.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Sivakumaran and orsWLR [1988] 2 WLR 92: [1988] Imm AR 147.
Political asylum — adverse decision by Secretary of State — case for asylum had been amplified by representatives in letters after applicant had been interviewed — whether the Secretary of State was then obliged to re-interview the applicant — late reliance by Secretary of State on applicant's lack of credibility — whether it was unfair that the applicant was given no opportunity to explain the facts on which that assessment of credibility was based.
Appeal from Macpherson J. The appellant was a long-time overstayer who while detained pending removal on a deportation order as an overstayer, claimed political asylum. She was interviewed in prison. She subsequently claimed that she had been unable to put her case fully during that interview, in the circumstances in which it took place. The basis of her claim was subsequently fully set out by her representatives, in letters to the Secretary of State. She was not, however, re-interviewed. When the case came before the learned judge at first instance, there was an affidavit sworn on behalf of the Secretary of State which gave as an additional reason for the decision to refuse asylum, the adverse assessment of the appellant's credibility based, inter alia on the time which elapsed between her claiming asylum and the occurrence of certain events on which she based her claim. At first instance the learned judge held that the Secretary of State's decision could not be impugned as irrational; her case had been fully put by her representatives and thus there had been no unfairness in not re-interviewing her: he also held that the issue of the lapse of time and her credibility so affected had not played a significant part in the Secretary of State's decision.
Before the Court of Appeal the same arguments were put to suggest that the Secretary of State's decision was flawed.
Held:
1. The Secretary of State's decision was not irrational and considerations of neither fairness nor reasonableness required the Secretary of State to re-interview the appellant, her case having been fully put by others.
2. However, it was unfair for the appellant not to have the opportunity of giving her explanation of the facts on which, in the late affidavit, her credibility was for the first time questioned.
May LJ: This is an appeal from the dismissal by Macpherson J on 22 July 1988 of an application on behalf of Miss Marion Gaima for judicial review in the nature of certiorari to quash three decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse her political asylum in the United Kingdom and also consequential removal orders made against her.
The applicant appellant was born in Sierra Leone in 1950. She was admitted to the United Kingdom in August 1973 for twelve months as a student. She obtained yearly extensions for the years 1974 to 1977. Her application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Ayse Oran
...the Home DepartmentELRWLR [1988] AC 958: [1988] 2 WLR 92: [1988] Imm AR 147. Marion Gaima v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1989] Imm AR 205. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte K [1990] Imm AR 393. Celal Yurekli v Secretary of State for the Home Department [......
-
R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Celal Yurekli
...the judgment: R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Jonah [1985] Imm AR 7. Marion Gaima v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1989] Imm AR 205. Political asylum — refusal by Secretary of State — Alevi Kurd — Turkish national — applicant persecuted in home village — not persecuted......
-
R MS Shanila Kanwal v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...to whether to provide bail accommodation, and to know what factors will be considered significant by the decision maker); Gaima v. SSHD [1989] Imm AR 205 (an overstayer who claimed asylum where the issue in that case was that the SSHD had not put to an asylum seeker the matters taken into a......
-
R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...enable the decisions to be made and that he must operate the system fairly: see eg Gaima v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1989] Imm AR 205, applying Re HK (Infant) [1967] 1 QB 617 at 70 What fairness requires of course depends upon the circumstances of the case. The underlying......