R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Bogou
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 2000 |
| Date | 15 February 2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Maurice Kay J
E Fripp for the applicant
Miss E Grey for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgment:
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte RobinsonUNK [1997] 4 All ER 210: [1997] Imm AR 568.
AjehUNK (unreported) (30 August 1996).
DiazayisuaUNK (unreported) (16 October 1997).
CabreraUNK (unreported) (21 May 1998).
JumaUNK (unreported) (17 July 1998).
OshoUNK (unreported) (16 September 1998).
KeyeyuneUNK (unreported) (25 November 1998).
Asylum appeal before special adjudicator applicant unrepresented application for adjournment refused by special adjudicator as not necessary for the just disposal of the appeal whether refusal proper in the light of the provisions of the Procedure Rules. Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1993 r. 10(1): Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 r. 10.
Judicial review delay in applying grounds for refusing leave to apply for judicial review. Supreme Court Act 1981 s. 31(6).
Renewed application for leave to apply for judicial review by a citizen of the Ivory Coast: she had been refused asylum by the Secretary of State: her appeal had been dismissed by a special adjudicator and the Tribunal had refused leave to appeal.
The applicant had appeared before the special adjudicator without representation: she had sought an adjournment which the special adjudicator after a careful analysis of the Procedure Rules refused: he concluded it was not necessary for the just disposal of the appeal, and he had no discretion to grant an adjournment.
Counsel argued that the adjudicator's decision was unreasonable and ran counter to a series of Tribunal decisions emphasising the need for an appellant in an asylum appeal to be represented.
The court noted the extensive delay in applying for leave to seek judicial review.
Held
1. In the light of the provisions of the 1996 Procedure Rules, the special adjudicator had been correct in his approach to the application for an adjournment. The Tribunal decisions which followed Ajeh of August 1996 failed to take any account of the wording of the 1996 Procedure Rules.
2. No satisfactory explanation had been given for the delay in seeking leave to apply for judicial review and the application was out of time.
1. Maurice Kay J: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, permission having been refused on the papers by Scott Baker J. The applicant is a citizen of the Ivory Coast. She arrived in the United Kingdom with three children on 14 July 1995 having travelled from the Ivory Coast via France using a false passport. On 24 July 1995 she claimed asylum. On 5 March 1997 she was interviewed. She claimed that she and her husband had suffered persecution in the Ivory Coast by reason of their involvement with an opposition party known as the FPI. She described a number of incidents. On 29 December 1991 there had been an incident in which a car had been driven at the applicant, her husband and their youngest daughter, on which occasion the daughter was injured. On 18 February 1992 a demonstration was violently attacked by the police and the applicant suffered a broken jaw. As a result, she escaped detention because she was hospitalised. The injuries had left permanent scars. On another occasion the applicant was stoned and driven from her father's village when seeking to campaign for the FPI. As time went by she received several summonses and constantly changed addresses. Her house was ransacked frequently by the police. In February 1995 her husband left the Ivory Coast in the belief that his family would be safer following his departure. However, the applicant continued to be harassed by the authorities who were seeking details of her husbands' whereabouts. She continued to move around. Eventually she heard that an arrest warrant had been issued and this caused her to flee.
2. By letter dated 13 January 1998 the applicant was informed that the Secretary of State had refused her claim for asylum. She gave notice of appeal to a special adjudicator and nominated Chanas, solicitors, as her authorised representatives. The notice of appeal is dated 12 February 1998. In his determination the special adjudicator described the period between the notice of appeal and the actual hearing as follows:
On 4 March 1998, notice of the time and place of the hearing fixed for 30 June 1999 was sent to ChanasOn 25 August 1998 the immigration appellate authority sent a fresh notice of hearing to Chanas stating that the appeal would be heard on 23 September 1998 at Gravesend. A copy was also sent to Mrs Bogou on the same day. On 18 September 1998, Chanas requested an adjournment on the grounds that they had submitted an application for legal aid on 9 September. They further indicated that if legal aid should be refused they would be transferring her case to a charitable body which would require time to prepare the case for representation. On 21 September 1998, the Ivorian Relief Action Group wrote requesting an adjournment on the basis that Mrs Bogou had no funds to pay for representation and that the Refugee Legal Centre was unable, in the time available, to represent her, having more work than it could manage.
3. It is surprising that application was being made for legal aid as it is common knowledge that legal aid is not available for a hearing before a special adjudicator. Among the exhibited documents is a notice from the Refugee Legal Centre dated 4 September 1998 informing the applicant that the Centre was not able to accept your case due to lack of capacity. We are not able to represent you at your appeal. On 23 September 1998 the appeal was listed before Mr C J Bennett, a special adjudicator. The applicant was unrepresented. She appeared in person and sought an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarkisian, R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal
...stringent. 5 On this point Ms Webber has referred me to the judgment of Maurice Kay J in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex p Lou Bogou [2000] Imm AR 494. In that case an unrepresented appellant sought an adjournment from the special adjudicator. The special adjudicator refused, concluding ......
-
Dirisu, R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal
...respect, says Miss Webber, and I agree, the present case differs very materially from R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex p Lou Bogou [2000] Imm AR 494, a case in which Maurice Kay J refused to interfere where an unrepresented asylum seeker had unsuccessfully sought an adjournment from the S......
-
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Ali
...this application for judicial review is dismissed. * Ex parte Kotovas will be found in [2000] Imm AR 26: see also ex parte Bogou [2000] Imm AR 494 ...
-
R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Alina Sarkisian
...v Doutlik (1998) (16152) (unreported). Piglowska v PiglowskiWLR [1999] 1 WLR 1360. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Lou Bougou [2000] Imm AR 494. Secretary of State for the Home Department v Immigration Appeal TribunalTLR (2001) The Times, 12 June 2001. R (Puspalatha) v Immigration ......