R v Chief Immigration Officer of Manchester Airport, ex parte Insah Begum
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MEGAW |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Civ J1103-1 |
| Date | 03 November 1972 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1972] EWCA Civ J1103-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Revised
The Master of the Rols (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Megaw and
Sir Gordon Willmer
Mr. MARTIN COLLINS, Q.C., and Dr. GHULAM SABIR KHAN (instructed by Messrs. Amelan & Roth of Manchester) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr. GORDON SLYNN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: Insah Begum, a woman, came from Pakistan to England. On 14th September 1971 about 2 p. m. she arrived at the airport at Manchester. She could not speak English at all. She produced a passport and an entry certificate. (The statute entitles a woman, a Commonwealth citimen, to enter this country if she holds an entry certificate and is the wife of a Commonwealth citizen who is resident here at the time.) This woman said her husband was a Mr. Hussain, who was here, and she produced an entry certificate. The Immigration Officer, Mr. Fuller, examined the entry certificate and thought that it was a forgery. It appeared to him that some one had manufactured a rubber stamp purporting to be an entry certificate issued by the British High Commission. This one was different from the genuine stamp. The lines were uneven and there was a difference in shape. The immigration officer made enquiries. He interviewed a man who was said to be her husband and a friend. He also had further interviews. He had a telex sent to Lahore about the entry certificate. At about 9 p. m. he told the woman and her friends, through an interpreter, that he thought that the entry certificate was a forgery and that he was expecting a reply to the telex. He said that no decision would be taken to admit or to refuse her until this had been received.
Later that day the woman got in touch with a solicitor. He got in touch with Counsel. On the next day, 15th September, the solicitor's managing clerk, with the woman, went along to see the immigration officer at Manchester Airport. Whilst they were interviewing the immigration officers there, a telex message was received from Lahore. It confirmed the suspicions about the entry certificate. It was a forgery. The authorities there had previously refused to issue her with a certificate. So she hadgot a forged one. Thereupon the immigration officer told his assistant to make out a notice of refusal saying she could not be admitted. When the assistant produced it, the solicitor's managing clerk lent across the table and took it from him, saying "I Mill take this: I am her legal representative." It was then 1. 30 p. m. on 15th September.
Upon that procedure two points are taken before us. The first point was that the officers had not complied with the procedure laid down by Article 2(1) of the First Schedule to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, which says:-
"The power of an immigration officer… to refuse admission into the United Kingdom… shall be exercised by notice in writing… and any such notice shall be given by being delivered by the immigration officer to the person to whom it relates."
The argument was based on the words "to the person to whom it relates". It is said that the notion ought to have been given to the woman herself and not to the solicitor's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for The Home Department ex parte ‘v’
...for the respondent Case referred to in the judgments: R v Chief Immigration Officer, Manchester Airport ex parte Insah BegumWLRUNK [1973] 1 WLR 141: [1973] 1 All ER 594. Indefinite leave interviews by immigration officers separate interviews on different days notice to applicant that a furt......
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Thirukumar
...Cases referred to in the judgments: R v Chief Immigration Officer, Manchester Airport ex parte Insah BegumUNKUNK [1972] 1 All ER 6: [1973] 1 All ER 594 (CA). Re HK (an infant)ELRUNK [1967] 2 QB 617: [1967] 1 All ER 226. R v Greater Manchester Coroner ex parte TalELRUNK [1985] QB 57: [1984] ......
-
Tkachuk v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
...regime, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, the case being R v Chief Immigration Officer Manchester Airport, ex parte Insah Begum [1973] 1 WLR 141, CA. This was a very clear case on its facts. The relevant provision provided for an immigration officer to give notice in writing and said an......
-
R and Another
...examination"? They were considered by this Court in Regina v. Chief Immigration Officer Manchester Airport, Ex parte Insah Begum (1973) 1 W. L. R. 141, where I said (at page 143-H): "very often an examination may have to be adjourned pending further inquiries, and then resumed after the rep......