R Sima Hiteshkumar Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Markus QC,JUDGE,Markus |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 2473 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/1122/2018 |
| Date | 03 July 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 2473 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE Markus QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
CO/1122/2018
APPEARANCES
Miss S Jegarajah (instructed by Hiren Patel Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
Mr D Ruck-Keene (instructed by Government Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
This is an application for judicial review of a decision originally made on 5 October 2017 cancelling the claimant's leave to enter on the basis essentially that the claimant had withheld material or material facts regarding her divorce proceedings, marriage and whether she was living with her spouse or former spouse. She sought administrative review. The first administration review decision was made on 23 October, saying that the reasons for the decision were incorrect but that the original decision remained in force. The new letter, the decision letter, contained the corrected reasons which comprised the original reasons and additional reasons as to the use of false representations and withholding material facts regarding the claimant's statement as to self-employment and earnings. The claimant sought administrative review of that decision. That administrative review was completed in December and the decision was maintained.
The claimant's grounds essentially fall under two heads. The first head is that the provision in the administrative review procedures (para.2.1) which allows the Secretary of State to supplement the decision either by adding new reasons or by changing the reasons is unlawful. The ground is essentially one of procedural fairness by reference in particular to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Caroopen [2017] 1 WLR 2339 and the specific requirements of fairness in relation to revoking leave to enter set out in Boahen [2010] EWCA Civ 585. The claimant's case essentially is that although the process adopted by the Secretary of State was permitted in accordance with the administrative review procedures, those procedures themselves are inconsistent with the requirement of fairness. She refers to the difficulties identified by the Court of Appeal in Caroopen relating to supplementing the original decision by further reasons, either curing errors or anticipating future gaps, in particular as explained by Beatson LJ at paras.94 and 95, although I note that he agreed with the decision of Underhill LJ on the issue of principle. She also refers to the caution with...
To continue reading
Request your trial