Martin v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 1972 |
| Date | 19 July 1972 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Queen's Bench Division
Lord Widgery, C.J., Melford Stevenson and Milmo, JJ.
R. A. Gatehouse, Q.C., and Christopher Clarke for the applicant.
Gordon Slynn for the respondent.
Business on own account Insufficiency of profit to maintain applicant Seamstress Whether private income from father abroad may be taken into consideration all relevant factors Immigration Appeals Act 1969, s 8(1)(a)(i) Cmnd 4295, rr 4, 10, 22.
Discretion Adjudicator's discretion Combining selected factors from separate rules designed for separate categories of person Appellant not able fully to satisfy specific rule all relevant factors Limitation on adjudicator's discretion when appellant not within specific rule Matter for Secretary of State's discretion outside the rules Immigration Appeals Act 1969, s 8(1)(a) & (2) Cmnd 4295, rr 4, 10, 22.
Miss M (a Commonwealth citizen) entered the United Kingdom as a visitor in March 1968 and was granted extensions of stay as a working holiday-maker up till a period of 3 years from her admission. She appealed against the refusal of any further extension, and it was contended before an adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal that she had sufficient means to maintain herself without recourse to employment for which a voucher was required. Her sources of support were a combination of her earnings as a seamstress working alone on her own account and a private income received from her father in Australia. Neither source was sufficient by itself. In its final form the argument advanced on her behalf was that she qualified for an extension as a person who had set up in business under r 221 of Cmnd 4295 and that it was a relevant factor under that rule and under r 42 of that Command Paper which should be taken into account that she also had a private income, albeit not large enough to make her a person of independent means under r 103 The Tribunal by a majority reversing the adjudicator, held4 that the Secretary of State had properly refused to grant Miss M an extension of stay.
On Miss M's application to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench for an order of certiorari to quash the Tribunal's determination,
Held: The application would be refused because
(i) The immigration rules, Cmnd 4295 governing the revocation or variation of conditions of admission, provided a number of different categories, and on a true construction of the rules an applicant seeking to show that he was entitled
to an extension under those rules must bring himself clearly within one or other of those categories(ii) the applicant in this case could not bring herself within r 22, and it was not possible to supplement the argument on r 22 by reference to r 10 or to her private income.
Per Lord Widgery, C.J.: An applicant in the situation of this lady who wishes to base her case on a number of different factors drawn from or relevant to a number of different categories must put her case as a special one to the Secretary of State and his discretion is still the final answer.
Per Melford Stevenson, J.: Between r 10 and r 22 of Cmnd 4295 there is as a matter of construction a fence which is unclimbable.
Lord Widgery, C.J.: In these proceedings counsel moves on behalf of one Jane Birkett Sandland Martin for an order of certiorari to bring up to this Court and quash a determination made by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on 20 October 1971. The circumstances of the case are these: the applicant is a lady who is a citizen of Australia; she came to the United Kingdom on 14 March 1968 as a visitor for a period of six months. That simply means that she was given permission to enter the country, but her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawood Mohd Patel v Secretary of state for the home department
...Picture Houses v Wednesbury CorporationELRUNK [1948] 1 KB 223; [1947] 2 All ER 680. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Martin [1972] Imm AR 275. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Husbadak [1982] Imm AR 8. Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen ShiuELRUNK [1983] ......
-
TD (paragraph 297(I) (e): 'Sole responsibility') Yemen
...[1978] Imm AR 100 Eugene v Entry Clearance Officer, Bridgetown [1975] Imm AR 111 Martin v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1972] Imm AR 71 Nmaju, Nmaju and Nmaju v Entry Clearance Officer [2001] INLR 26 Qui Zou v Entry Clearance Officer [2002] UKIAT 07463 Ramos v Immigration Appe......
-
TD (Paragraph 297(i))
...Leading Tribunal decisions 8 We turn first to consider the leading Tribunal decisions of Emmanuel v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 69; Martin v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 71; Sloley v ECO, Kingston [1973] Imm AR 54; and Rudolph v ECO, Colombo [1984] Imm AR 84. 9 Our starting point is the decision in Emmanuel v......
-
Alexey Pallovich Buydov v Entry Clearance Officer, Moscow
...did not have sole responsibility. Eugene v ECO Bridgetown [1975] Imm AR 111, discussed at [36] was a similar case, as were Martin v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 71, discussed at [11], ECO, Accra v Otou-Acheampong [2002] UKIAT 06687, discussed at [37] and R (Philippines) v SSHD [2003] UKIAT 00109, dis......