R (Pathak) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE JACK |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 1439 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/5496/2002 |
| Date | 26 February 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 1439 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London WC2
Mr Justice Jack
CO/5496/2002
DR D THAPA (Acting as a McKenzie friend} appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR J P WAITE (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for Judicial Review. The decision which it is sought to review is the refusal of leave by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal acting through Mr J Barnes, their Vice-President, refusing leave to the applicant, Mr Raj Kumar Pathak, to appeal from the decision of the adjudicator dated 18th July 2002. Mr Barnes' decision is dated 4th September 2002. The adjudicator in his turn had dismissed the appeal of Mr Pathak against the decision of the Secretary of State taken on 29th November 2001 for Mr Pathak's removal to Nepal after refusing his application for asylum.
Leave to appeal from the decision of an adjudicator will only be granted where there is a real prospect of success. The applicant failed before the adjudicator here mainly because the adjudicator did not accept his evidence on the key matters. The adjudicator gave reasons for doing so in respect of the different passages of evidence in question. Those reasons are rational; they are not irrational, as has been claimed by the the applicant. The adjudicator took full account of the situation existing in Nepal. Leave was refused on the grounds that no grounds were put forward which showed that the adjudicator's determination of credibility and his reasoning was likely to be upset on an appeal.
A further matter has been raised before me this morning as to the standard of proof adopted by the adjudicator. That is correctly dealt with by him in paragraph 14 of his decision.
I conclude that the refusal of leave was a determination reached in accordance with the law. There are no reasons on which it might be interfered with by way of Judicial Review.
Thank you both for your assistance.
To continue reading
Request your trial