R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte S
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1998 |
| Date | 09 February 1998 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Sullivan
Asylum - determining appeal without a hearing
When considering whether to determine an appeal without a hearing, a special adjudicator had to consider the material before him, the nature of the issues raised below and the extent to which any directions given had been complied with, in accordance with rule 35(1)(e) of the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules (SI 1996 No 2070 (L5)).
Failure to comply with directions was not on its own enough to determine an appeal without a hearing where the material raised issues which could only be determined by a hearing.
Mr Justice Sullivan so held in the Queen's Bench Division when granting the application of S to quash the refusal of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dated June 26, 1997, to grant him leave to appeal against the dismissal by a special adjudicator, dated June 13, 1997 of his appeal from the rejection by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated March 6, 1995, of S's application for asylum.
Mr Peter Duffy, QC and Mr Ramby de Mello for S; Mr Patrick Elias, QC and Mr Robin Tam for the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN said that when considering disposing of an appeal without a hearing, a special adjudicator had to consider the factors in rule 35(1)(e) conjunctively, and then only to dispose of the appeal when it would be just to do so.
The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on January 13, 1994 and immediately claimed asylum, which was refused by the Home Secretary on March 6, 1995. The applicant appealed to a special adjudicator and the appeal was dismissed on July 27, 1996.
The applicant's subsequent appeal was heard by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on September 23, 1996 and it remitted the case de novo to another special adjudicator. The matter was listed for December 23, 1996 but was adjourned with the special adjudicator handing down directions under rule 23 of the 1996 Rules. On February 7, 1997...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Saleem
...(CA, unreported, 24 April 1997). R v Lord Chancellor ex parte WithamELR [1998] QB 575. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte S [1998] Imm AR 252. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte SaleemUNK (QBD, unreported, 1 October 1999). I Burnett QC for the Secretary of State A......
-
Asifa Saleem (Applicant/Respondent) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Respondent/Appellant)
...the scale of the problems facing the system (acknowledged, for example, by Sullivan J in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte S [1998] Imm AR 252, at 260). 94 Again, I am unable to accept that argument. The effect of this rule is more drastic than the effect of the rules in Leech or ev......
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Asifa Saleem
...where the risk of mail getting "lost" is greater. 18 Mr Tam drew my attention to R v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte S [1998] Imm.A.R. 252, where Sullivan J (at page 260) identifies the difficulties associated with the processing of asylum applications. He submits, rightly in my vi......
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Asifa Saleem
...where the risk of mail getting "lost" is greater. 18 Mr Tam drew my attention to R v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte S [1998] Imm.A.R. 252, where Sullivan J (at page 260) identifies the difficulties associated with the processing of asylum applications. He submits, rightly in my vi......