R TN (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Civ 1807 |
| Date | 12 December 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C4/2006/1031 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 1807
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE HODGE)
Lord Justice Maurice Kay
C4/2006/1031
MR M PAGET (instructed by Messrs Lawrence Lupin Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
J U D G M E N T
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal. Permission was refused on the papers by Carnwath LJ. The decision in respect of which the application is made was a decision of Hodge J sitting in the Administrative Court when he refused an application for permission to apply for judicial review. The proposed challenge was to a decision of the Secretary of State refusing to treat representations made on behalf of the applicant as a fresh application under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules.
The position is that the applicant has engaged with the immigration decision-making bodies for a substantial period of time without substantive success. However, there are positive findings in her favour following a hearing before an adjudicator some time ago to the effect that she had been abused, ill-treated and probably raped by her father in Uganda, and that she was at real risk of further mistreatment and possibly death at his hands. Why her appeal to the adjudicator failed was that the adjudicator concluded that the applicant could reasonably relocate within Uganda to a place where she would be beyond the reach of her father.
Since that hearing before the adjudicator, which was in January 2003, further representations have been made on behalf of the applicant on a number of occasions, in all cases resulting in an unsatisfactory outcome as far as she was concerned. I am concerned only with the most recent further representations.
The matter arose in this way. In December 2005, the applicant received a letter from Uganda. On the face of it, it reported that her youngest sister had been killed by her father and he had become an active member of the Lord's Resistance Army. At about the same time the applicant also heard that her aunt had died and her brothers had disappeared. These developments resulted in the fresh representations to which I have referred. However, the Secretary of State concluded that the matter did not satisfy the demands of rule 353. At the inter partes permission hearing before Hodge J he came to the conclusion that the Secretary of State's decision was unassailable. He described it as “not an easy case” but he concluded that the application for permission to apply for judicial review was unarguable. His reasons are to be found in paragraph 40 where he said this:
“It is important to look at this case in its full context. There is force in the submission made by the Secretary of State that there had been numerous attempts on behalf of the claimant, mostly ill-founded, to sidestep the decisions of the adjudicator. I share the doubts expressed by the Secretary of State about the provenance of the information said to come from the Pastor in Uganda. It is unclear as to when the information arrived. The claims were raised in full detail only after the appellant had been detained prior to her removal. I am not satisfied that the evidence itself is so clear as to get anywhere near the tests set out in Onibayo as to whether this current claim would have a 'realistic prospect that a favourable view' could be taken of it. I accept that I do not have to decide that no such favourable view would be taken but it seems to me that on the basis of the information I have and the submissions I have heard the right answer is to dismiss this application.”
As I have indicated to Mr Paget, to whom I am grateful for attending at very short notice following some mix...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aaq For Judicial Review Of A Decision Of The Secretary Of State For The Home Department Dated 30 April 2010
...34); 4. IM v SSHD [2010] CSOH 103 (at paragraphs 7 to 9 and 11); 5. ZT (Kosovo) v SSHD [1009] UKHL 6 (at paragraph 20); 6. TN (Uganda) [2006] EWCA Civ 1807 (at paragraph 10); 7. AK (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 535 (at paragraph 23); 8. AH v SSHD 2004 SCLR 524 (at paragraph 36); 9. T......
-
M.o. (ap) For Judicial Review Of The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
...SSHD [2010] WLR 855; IM v SSHD [2010] CSOH 103; ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 1 WLR 348; TN (Uganda) [2006] EWCA Civ 1807; AK (Afghanistan) [2007] EWCA Civ 535; Abdul Hassan 2004 SCLR 524; SB (Risk on Return Illegal Exit) Iran CG [2009] UKAIT 00053; FK (Per......
-
A.m. For Judicial Review Of A Decision Of The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
...10. Hassan v SSHD 2004 SLT 34, 11. SSHD ex p Boybeyi [1997] Imm AR 491, at pages 495-496; 12. R (on the application of TN) (Uganda) [2006] EWCA Civ 1807, para 10; 13. AK (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 535; 14. Extract from Borders, Citizenship and......
-
N.a.k. For Judicial Review Of A Decision Of The Secretary Of State For The Home Department Dated 3rd December 2008
...4. Zarnaghi v SSHD [2002] UKIAT 02272 (paragraphs 4 and 12-14); 5. Sepet and Bulbul v SSHD [2003] UKHL 15; 6. TN (Uganda) v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1807 (paragraph 10); 7. Hassan v SSHD [2004] SLT 34; 8. Boybeyi v SSHD [1997] ImmAR 491; 9. AK v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 535; 10. Harbachou v SSHD [2......