R Sood v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | D Gill |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 3876 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/3078/2014 |
| Date | 14 October 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 3876 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
D Gill
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
CO/3078/2014
Mr Eric Fripp (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Rory Dunlop (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
THE DEPUTY JUDGE: The claimant is a national of India who seeks permission following the refusal of permission on the papers by Blake J. After some discussion at the hearing today with Mr Fripp, it became clear that the claimant does challenge a decision of the defendant of 29 June 2014 to refuse leave to remain as a Tier 4 (Migrant) Student under the points based system. The original claim form also asserts that the decision to detain the claimant is unlawful. I should say straight away that the detention point was not pursued at the hearing today.
The claimant's application for leave to remain as a Tier 4 (Migrant) Student was made on 16 January 2014. His application was refused on 29 June 2014 because the defendant took the view that the claimant had practised deception in relation to his application for leave, in that, in the defendant's view, he had submitted an English language test certificate that he had been obtained by deception. I will note at this point that on the same date as the date upon which the refusal of leave to remain was made, the defendant also made a decision to remove the claimant. The decision to remove is dated 29 June 2014. It confers on the claimant a right of appeal under s.82 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the "2002 Act") that is exercisable after he has left the United Kingdom.
The grounds contend that the refusal of leave to remain is unlawful insofar as it relies upon the assertion that the claimant had practised deception. It is said that this is because there were various failings. It is said that the defendant had failed to inform the claimant of his right to legal representation; that she had failed to interview the claimant under caution or otherwise; and that she had failed to put the evidence of the deception relied upon to the claimant.
At the hearing, Mr Fripp relied upon a further alleged failing, i.e. that the defendant had only produced generic evidence in the form of a witness statement from a Mr Peter Millington, attached to the summary grounds of defence. There was no evidence that there was a positive match by way of evidence that the claimant had himself practised deception. Mr Millington had not stated that there had been a positive match.
However, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of Amit Sood) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Ms D Gill [2014] EWHC 3876 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Richards Lord Justice Beatson and Lady Justice King Case No: C4/2014/33......