JR248's Application (Leave Stage) and in the matter of decisions of The Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Scoffield J |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NIKB 28 |
| Date | 15 March 2023 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NIKB 28
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: SCO12105
ICOS No: 22/091846/01
Delivered: 15/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ‘JR248’
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF DECISIONS OF
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
___________
Robert McTernaghan (instructed by Creighton & Co, Solicitors) for the applicant
Aidan Sands (instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office) for the proposed respondent
___________
SCOFFIELD J
Introduction
[1] This application was initially commenced in late October 2022 on an urgent
basis. The applicant is an asylum seeker who arrived in Belfast in July 2022 and has
claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. She has been granted anonymity in these
proceedings on the usual protective basis that, in the event that her asylum claim is
unsuccessful, and she is returned to her state of origin, she should not be (at risk of
being) subject to detriment on the basis of having been publicly identified as an
asylum seeker in a judgment of this court, having sought to invoke its supervisory
jurisdiction.
[2] When the proceedings were commenced, the impugned decision on the part
of the proposed respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD),
was identified as the SSHD’s “omission to pay her [the applicant] the required
essential monies to cover essential living needs under Section 95 of the Immigration
& Asylum Act 1999.” The applicant sought interim relief by way of an order
requiring “the urgent payment of all her essential monies/living expenses owed to
her, from the period of the 16th of August 2022 to date…” The pleaded grounds of
challenge were illegality, in the form of delay in making statutorily mandated
payments in breach of her Convention rights under articles 3 and 8 ECHR; breach of
To continue reading
Request your trial