R Hamid v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir John Thomas,Mr Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 30 October 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/11406/2012 |
| Date | 30 October 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin)
Sir John Thomas
President of the Queen's Bench Division
Mr Justice Cranston
CO/11406/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
THE PRESIDENT: This is the judgment of the court. On 13 January 2011, the claimant entered the United Kingdom from Bangladesh as a student with clearance until 30 April 2014. On 30 March 2012, the leave was curtailed to expire on 29 May 2012. The claimant was found to be working in a restaurant in Bournemouth. On Saturday 20 October 2012, he was notified that he was an overstayer and held in detention. The following day he was served with removal directions for a flight on Thursday 25 October 2012 at 9.15 am. He then consulted immigration advisors and representations were made to the Secretary of State. Those representations were rejected and the removal affirmed. On Wednesday 24 October 2012, further representations were made by a firm of solicitors. They were considered on behalf of the Secretary of State and rejected. At 4.00 pm that afternoon an application was made by the solicitors to the Administrative Court claiming that the court should defer the removal.
This court, because of a very substantial number of such claims, has now revised its form N463. First the form requires in section 1 that the reasons for urgency be stated. Secondly, it requires in section 2 the appellant to state the timetable in which the matter should be heard. Third, it requires the justification for immediate consideration to be given. In particular it requires the date and time when it was first appreciated that an immediate application might be necessary and, if there have been any delays, the reasons are to be stated. Also the form requires any efforts that have been made to put the defendant and any interested party on notice to be set out.
The form was revised because the Administrative Court faces an ever increasing large volume of applications in respect of pending removals said to require immediate consideration. Many are filed towards the end of the working day, often on the day of the flight or the evening before a morning flight. In many of these applications the person concerned has known for some time, at least a matter of days, of his removal. Many of these cases are totally without merit. The court infers that in many cases applications are left to the last moment in the hope that it will result in a deferral of the removal.
The Court of Appeal in R (Madan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 1 WLR 2891 set out in the judgment given by Buxton LJ a number of principles that must be taken into account by legal advisers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Israr Shah (Anonymity Direction Not Made) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Court, for that Court to consider whether to require an explanation from the solicitors and/or counsel concerned (see Hamid v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin)). Decision 81 The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains no error of law. The appeal is dis......
-
R (on the application of Elizabeth Wingfield) v Canterbury City Council
...if the principles underlying the decision in R. (on the application of Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin) should ever have to be applied in cases where the jurisdiction under CPR 52.30 is inappropriately invoked. Although it originated in the field......
-
FB v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...order (see paragraphs 23.1 and 23.13 of this Guide respectively). 16.5.2 In R. (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin) (see paragraph 16.1.4 above) the Court held that where urgent applications are made improperly the Court may summon the legal represen......
-
R (on the application of FB (Afghanistan) and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)
...[2004] UKHL 55; [2005] 2 AC 1; [2005] 2 WLR 1; [2005] 1 All ER 527, HL(E)R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin); [2013] CP Rep 6R (Hillingdon London Borough Council) v Lord Chancellor [2008] EWHC 2683 (Admin); [2009] PTSR CS20; [2009] 1 FLR 39R (Howa......
-
The Forensic Ethics of Scientific Communication
...November) 17.37. Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson [2018] UKUT 253 (LC) [93]; R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin).38. R (Sathivel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 893 (Admin), [2018] 4 WLR 89.39. R (Citizens UK) v Secretary......
-
The Forensic Ethics of Scientific Communication
...November) 17.37. Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson [2018] UKUT 253 (LC) [93]; R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin).38. R (Sathivel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 893 (Admin), [2018] 4 WLR 89.39. R (Citizens UK) v Secretary......
-
Form KBD OHA
...of hours application, applicants should bear in mind R (on the application of Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin). If the judge makes a determination, whether or not your Out of Hours application is successful, in accordance with CPR 25APD4.5 you mus......