R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Armstrong [QBD]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 1977 |
| Date | 14 February 1977 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Lord Widgery CJ, Michael Davies and Robert Goff JJ
K. S. Nathan for the applicant.
Harry Woolf for the respondent.
Notice of appeal Time limit for appealing Immigration Appeal Tribunal Whether jurisdiction in Tribunal to extend time for leave to appeal from adjudicator's determination Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972, rr 11(4), 15(1) & (2), 38.
The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend the time permitted under r 15 in Part III of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972 for making application to the Tribunal for leave to appeal, or for giving notice of appeal, from the determination of an adjudicator. The approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in the case ofR. P. Mehta, which concerned an appeal at first instance to an adjudicator (under r 11(4) in Part II of the Procedure Rules), was not permissible on appeals to the Tribunal from adjudicators, for such appeals were dealt with in Part III of the Procedure Rules, andin marked contrast to the clear and explicit power to extend time given in r 11(4)there was nothing in r 15 to say that the time limits could be extended and no comparable provision could be inferred anywhere else in Part III.
Furthermore, the very wide words in the provisions of r 38 (in Part IV of the Procedure Rules) for the curing of irregularities resulting from failure to comply with the Rules, were not to be construed as containing a power enablingstill less, requiringthe Tribunal to confer upon itself a jurisdiction which it did not otherwise possess (see p 84, post).
Per curiam: If the words of r 38 were intended to be so wide (as counsel for the appellant contended) one asks onself why have the specific provisions of r 11 at allwhy, if all that one really needed was r 38 to solve all problems?
The Court so held on the facts and Immigration Procedure Rules which are set out in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice which is reported below.
Lord Widgery CJ: In these proceedings Mr Nathan moves on behalf of one Kelvin Barry Armstrong for an Order of Certiorari to remove into this Court with a view to its being quashed the determination of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dated 9 January 1976. The effect of that determination was to decline to hear an appeal sought to be brought by the present applicant on the basis that it was out of time. Relief is also sought in the form of an Order of Mandamus which is to follow the Order of Certiorari if the latter is granted to require the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh.
The history of the case is quite brief and it is a case where an interesting point of law arises, although for reasons which will appear in a moment it has not been possible in these proceedings to give that interesting point of law an airing.1
The applicant is a citizen of Singapore. He is 30 years of age. He was born illegitimate. His father was one Scarife and his mother was a Singapore girl. On 9 October 1949 the applicant was adopted by a Mr Armstrong and took the name of Armstrong under which name he moves today. All this happened in Singapore.
He came to the United Kingdom on 14 April 1972 as a visitor with a passport for 6 months. To his credit, and unlike so many people who come in with similar passes, he took action when he saw his 6 months was running out and applied to the Home Office for a further extension of time to stay in this country, giving as his reason that he wanted to find his natural father. The Home Office refused that application in December 1973 and the applicant thereupon appealed to an adjudicator...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Mariam Chumun and Another
...ors. v St Albans Rural District CouncilWLRUNK [1972] 1 WLR 1230: [1972] 3 All ER 129. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Armstrong [1977] Imm AR 80. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mehmet [1977] Imm AR 56. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Draz [1985] Im......
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Jeyeanthan
...have rejected any implied power to extend the short period of 5 days which is laid down (see R v Immigration Appeal ex parte Armstrong [1977] Imm AR 80, Div. Court and Ashrafi v Immigration Appeal [1981] Imm AR 34, CA). As to time limits this approach is readily understandable because ther......
-
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Riza for Sivakumaran, Skandarajah and Vilarajah. Cases referred to in the judgments: R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Armstrong [1977] Imm AR 80. Ashrafi v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1981] Imm AR 34. Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside PoliceWLR [1986] 2 WLR 144. R v Secretar......
-
Athiroobasingam Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...any implied power to extend the short period of five days which is laid down (see R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Armstrong [1977] Imm AR 80, (DC) and Ashrafi v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1981] Imm AR 34, (CA). As to time-limits this approach is readily understandable because the......