R (Rakib) v House of Lords Appointment Commission
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 1689 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C1/2005/1466 |
| Date | 07 December 2005 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1689
Lord Justice Mummery
C1/2005/1466
THE APPLICANT APPEARED IN PERSON
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
Judgement
1. This is an application for permission to appeal. The application is made by Mr Mohammed Abdul Rakib in person and the decision which he wishes to appeal is that of Calvert Smith J on 1st July 2005, when, following an oral hearing, he refused the renewed application made by Mr Rakib for permission to apply for judicial review. Permission had previously been refused by Hodge J on paper. His decision was on 28th April 2005.
The decision, which Mr Rakib wishes to challenge by way of judicial review, is that of the House of Lords' Appointment Commission, to whom Mr Rakib had made a number of applications to be recommended for appointment as a non-party political peer. Mr Rakib, according to his CV, has a record of public service in Tower Hamlets. He was educated in Bangladesh between 1953 and 1958. He has also received education in London.
According to his CV, he has a commitment to education, through connections with schools in Bethnal Green and Tower Hamlets from 1983 onwards. Details are given of the various schools and colleges of which he has been a governor. He also gives details of his commitment to community activities in Tower Hamlets from 1994 onwards. He gives details of his interests and other activities, in addition to basic information relating to his date of birth, which was 1st January 1939, and to his British nationality. He names referees in his CV.
Mr Rakib made a number of applications to the House of Lords Appointments Commission which were processed between 6th October 2000 and 11th November 2004. None of them has been successful. His third and last nomination was that dated 23rd August 2004 in which he gave details of his name, address and nationality and summarised the reasons why he considered that he was suitable for recommendation to a Lordship appointment as a non-party political member. He referred to his 20 years of voluntary service in connection with various bodies in Tower Hamlets.
On 11th November 2004, his third time application was rejected. The letter, sent by the Secretary to the Appointments Commission, read as follows:
"Dear Mr Rakib,
I am writing to let you know that, after careful consideration of your nomination, the Commission has decided that it will not be recommending you for appointment.
The Commission very much hopes that you will not be too disappointed: it received a large number of high quality nominations and is invited to make only a small number of recommendations. Your nomination was assessed rigorously and consistently against the published criteria.
I would like to thank you for your patience in allowing the Commission the time needed to carry out its task with care and consideration."
Mr Rakib was dissatisfied with that response and he completed a claim form for judicial review that was issued on 1st February 2005. The decision, which he wished to review, was that of the Commission notifying him that it would not recommend him for an appointment to the House of Lords. In the detailed statement of grounds, in section 5 of the claim form, he stated this:
"(1) The decision was unfair as no reasons were given to the applicant. The decision is therefore contrary to the principles of natural justice.
(ii) The Commission refers to published criteria but did not provide the applicant with a copy of the criteria, nor did the Commission provide any evidence that the criteria were applied to the applicant's case.
(iii) A Citizens Advice Bureau has written on my behalf twice to request reasons but no reply or explanation has been forthcoming."
It is on the basis of those grounds that the remedy sought by him is an order that the decision of the Appointments Commission be quashed. A Statement of Facts is attached to the claim form.
That was the application that was considered on paper by Hodge J on 28th April 2005. The judge mentioned in his refusal of permission that the Appointments Commission had provided a letter of 16th February 2005 setting out the reasons why the application to be nominated to the House of Lords, by the House of Lords Appointments Commission was not successful.
The judge went on to say that he was satisfied that Mr Rakib was at all times aware of the assessment criteria for nomination as currently set out in the Commission's information pack. He included an earlier but similar version of these criteria in the application papers and the judge noted that he had withdrawn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Countryside Alliance and Others) v Attorney General and another
...London, WC2 Before: The Master of The Rolls Lord Justice Brooke, Vice President, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and Lord Justice Buxton C1/2005/2071, C1/2005/2072, C1/2005/2071(B) , C1/2005/2071(C) , C1/2005/2071(Y) , C1/2005/2072(A) , C1/2005/2083 The Queen on The Application of The Coun......