Kara v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1995 |
| Date | 04 July 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Neill, Swinton Thomas LJJ
Miss S Harrison for the appellant
A Underwood for the respondent
No cases are referred to in the judgments
Appeal appeal of Secretary of State allowed adjudicator had refused adjournment for enquiry into appellant's allegation about interviews remittal by Tribunal for hearing de novo before another adjudicator whether a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal where case remitted whether, in so remitting a case the Tribunal made a final determination judicial review whether Tribunal determination Wednesbury unreasonable. Immigration Act 1971 s. 20(1): Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 ss. 9(1), 20(1): Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1993 r. 17(3).
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the determination of the Tribunal, or alternatively for judicial review of the determination. The Tribunal had allowed an appeal by the Secretary of State against the determination of an adjudicator, insofar as it had remitted the case for a hearing de novo before another adjudicator. The appellant before the adjudicator had challenged the record as to the identity of interpreters used in his interviews: the Secretary of State's representative had applied for an adjournment to establish the true position: the adjudicator had refused an adjournment. It was contended before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had agreed, that the matter went to the credibility of the appellant.
Counsel argued that there had been other sufficient evidence before the adjudicator to support his favourable findings on credibility and that the decision of the Tribunal was unreasonable.
Held
1. Counsel conceded that the remittal of a case for a hearing de novo was not a final determination within section 9(1) of the 1993 Act. Thus no appeal lay to the Court of Appeal.
2. The matter raised before the Tribunal could have been relevant, as the Tribunal concluded, to the appellant's credibility. The Tribunal had not acted unreasonably and leave to move for judicial review would be refused.
Neill LJ: I will ask Swinton Thomas LJ to give the first judgment.
Swinton Thomas LJ: This is an application by Mr Hussein Kara for leave to appeal against a determination of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal of 9 February 1995. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal, in turn, allowed an appeal by the Secretary of State against a determination of the special adjudicator, dated 16 August 1994, allowing the appellant's appeal against the refusal of asylum by the respondent, the Secretary of State, on 13 January 1989. We have also heard an application for leave to apply for judicial review dated 29 June 1995 for an order of certiorari to move into this court and quash the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
The applicant was born in 1956. He is a Kurdish citizen of Turkey. He came to this country on 19 August 1988 and was permitted to remain for a period of six months as a visitor. On 23 September 1988 he applied for asylum. The basis of that application was that he had been subjected to harassment in Turkey.
On 31 October 1988, he was interviewed by immigration officials at Gatwick Airport, together with an interpreter. The contents of that interview were the subject matter of considerable dispute at the hearing before the adjudicator. It was the appellant's case at that hearing that he did not really understand what was being said to him in the course of the interview. It is said by him, and on his behalf, that he is a Kurdish speaker, that the interview took place in the Turkish language and that he did not understand it.
On 13 January 1989...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal
...But in the case of substantive remittals the Tribunal is faced with the decision in Kara v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] Imm.A.R. 584 which decided that a remittal of a case for a hearing de novo is not a "final determination" within Section 9 (1) of the 1993 Act, and th......
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Zengin
...865. Taj Bibi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1977] Imm AR 27. Hussein Kara v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] Imm AR 584. Falilat Akewushola v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK [2000] 2 All ER 148: [1999] Imm AR 594. R v Immigration Appeal Tribuna......
-
Anteneh v Secretary of State for Home Department
...1993 Act this court decided on similar facts that a decision to remit was not such a final determination in Kara v Secretary of State [1995] Imm AR 584. That decision has recently been followed by Scott Baker J in Secretary of State v Immigration Appeal Tribunal (9th April 2001). Although S......