R (Lekstaka) v IAT and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MOSES |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 539 (Admin),[2005] EWHC 745 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/5697/2003 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 04 March 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 539 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London WC2
MR JUSTICE MOSES
CO/5697/2003
MR R HUSSEIN (instructed by TRP) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR D BEARD (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
I shall give permission in this case. It seems to me that if there is to be any flexibility, from time to time the needs of immigration control may be overridden by rights protected under Article 8.1. This may be such a case.
I am concerned at the reference by the Adjudicator to "lots of other young men". It does seem to me to be arguable that the mere fact there may be a lot of people in this situation is arguably not a ground for saying that immigration control demands that this young man, who has been here since he was 16 and lost his only family in the most desperate circumstances, should not be one of the few to be able to remain and that it was outwith the range of reasonable responses to say that it did.
I am concerned about delay and as to whether there was good reason for delay. But I am not prepared to refuse this application on that ground at this stage, bearing in mind the inter-relationship between merits and delay. I shall adjourn the question of delay so the judge who hears the substantive matter can consider it. The fact that I have given permission, and it is obviously arguable either way, does not mean I would hope this case ever saw the light of day again.
I do hope somebody can look at this particular case again and the claimant can stay with the only family he has. He is only 20, fit though he may be, and the idea of sending him back to Kosovo when he has been in this country since the age of 16, certainly gives pause for further thought. I hope somebody can look at this case again and it disappears without a trace.
My Lord, I am most grateful. May I apply for a detailed assessment for my public funding costs?
Yes.
May I also ask for costs to be reserved?
Yes, absolutely. Thank you...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2006-10-10, [2006] UKAIT 75 (LD (Article 14, Same-sex relationships))
...treatment was justified. She relied on passages in R v SSHD ex parte Arman Ali [2000] INLR 89 and R (Lekstaka) v IAT and SSHD [2005] EWHC 745 (Admin) in support of this submission (see paras 41 and 42 of the appellant’s skeleton). She relied upon the case of Ghaidan where, on the basis of a......
-
Patel and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [Sup Ct]
...to be counted in her favour. Ward LJ, at para 30, adopted the observation of Collins J in Lekstaka v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2005] EWHC 745 (Admin) para 38 that: "… one is entitled to see, whether in all the circumstances, this case falls within the spirit of the Rules or the policies......
-
SB (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...18 Nonetheless the Tribunal did go on to address other matters, saying: “64. We accept Ms Naik's submission that, on the basis of Lekstaka [ Lekstaka v IAT [2005] EWHC 745 (Admin)], it is right that we should bear in mind the fact that the appellant only just failed to qualify for admission......
-
KL (Article 8-Lekstaka-delay-near-misses)
...Home Office Presenting Officer KL (Article 8-Lekstaka-delay-near-misses) Serbia & Montenegro The judgment of Collins J in Lekstaka [2005] EWHC 745 (Admin) established that on Judicial Review of a refusal of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal of permission to appeal to it that claimant's case ......