R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Bakhtaur Singh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 1984 |
| Date | 11 December 1984 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Stephenson, Fox and Purchas LJJ
John Laws for the appellant.
Frances Webber for the respondent.
Cases referred to in the judgment:
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte SohalUNK [1981] Imm A R 20, DC.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Arvind Chaturb hi Patel [14.2.1984] unreported, DC.
R v NazariUNKWLR [1980] 71 CR. A.R.87. 3 All ER 88, [1980] 1 WLR 1366 C.A.
Mohamed Rustan Khan [23.7.1983] unreported, TH/101105/82 (2724).
Practise and procedure — Deportation — Compassionate circumstances — Public interest — Whether compassionate circumstances to be considered were limited to those of a personal nature relating solely to impact of deportation upon applicant himself — Whether impact of deportation upon community relations was a compassionate circumstance to be considered — If not was it a relevant circumstance — Immigration Act 1971 s.3(5)(a) — HC 66 paras 154, 155, 156 and 158.
The applicant, a citizen of India described in his affidavit as a ‘priest/musician’, arrived in September 1979 with a work permit as a member of an India folk music group. He was admitted in that capacity, and granted an extension until 30 November 1979. However successive applications for further stay, as a visitor and music teacher/priest respectively, were refused. Following ignoral of advice by the Home Office that he would be liable to deportation if he did not leave he was arrested and, after pleading guilty to the charge of overstaying, sentenced to two months imprisonment. On 1 Feburary 1983 he was served with notice of the Home Secretary's intention to deport him. His consequential appeal was dismissed by an adjudicator and leave to appeal against that decision refused by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. In the present proceedings he sought judicial review of both these decisions the judge holding that he was entitled to succeed.
Held: (i) In the context of paragraph 154 ‘Public interest’ meant that in favour of deportation, excluding any considerations of public interest which might be against deportation.
(ii) ‘Compassionate circumstances’ in paragraph 154 were those of a personal nature relating to the impact of the departure upon the applicant himself.
(iii) In the context of paragraph 158 ‘Relevant circumstances’ did not extend to matters unrelated to the personal circumstances of the applicant, his family and persons intimately connected with him.
Fox LJ: This is an appeal from an order of Hodgson J that a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing leave to the applicant, Bakhtaur Singh, to appeal from a determination of an adjudicator be quashed.
The applicant, who is described in the affidavit sworn on his behalf in support of the application for judicial review as ‘a priest/musician’, arrived in the United Kingdom in 1979. He is a Sikh and an Indian citizen. He is about 34 years of age. He came to this country in September 1979 with a work permit for employment as a member of an Indian folk music group. He was given then, and by a later extension, permission to remain in that capacity, until 30 November 1979. Early in November 1979 he made application to stay for a further three months as a visitor; almost immediately afterwards he applied for a further six months' stay as a music teacher and priest. These applications were both rejected. Extension of time under the Immigration (Variation of Leave) Order expired in October 1980.
On 8 December 1980 the Home Secretary wrote to Messrs. Sargeant and Collins, the applicant's representatives, stating that the applicant should leave the United Kingdom as soon as possible.
In February 1981 representations were made on the applicant's behalf by a Member of Parliament. The Home Secretary refused to alter his previous decision and stated that the applicant should leave the United Kingdom at once. On 16 March 1981 the applicant informed the Home Office that he would leave within the next four weeks. There being nothing to suggest that the applicant had in fact left, the Home Office wrote to him on 2 June 1981 informing him that he would be liable to deportation if he did not leave the United Kingdom immediately.
In June 1982, the applicant was arrested and charged with overstaying. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment; in addition a recommendation was made for his deportation. He appealed to the Crown Court; the recommendation was quashed.
On 4 October 1982 the applicant was informed, through a Member of Parliament, that he should leave without delay, He did not do so. The Home Secretary therefore decided to deport him under s. 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. Notice of that decision was given to the applicant on 1 February 1983. He appealed to an adjudicator; and that appeal was dismissed. The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal refused leave. In the present proceedings the applicant seeks judicial review of these two decisions. The judge held that he was entitled to succeed.
At this point, we should refer to the statutory and other provisions with which we are concerned.
S.3(5) and (6) of the Immigration Act 1971 provide:
‘(5) A person who is not patrial shall be liable to deportation from the United Kingdom—
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the Application of Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [Sup Ct]
...the Secretary of State to avoid her statutory obligation to lay any changes in the rules before Parliament. 42 In R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex p Bakhtuar Singh [1986] 1 WLR 901, 917–918 Lord Bridge of Harwich said that the rules, as they stood at that time, frequently offered no more......
- R v Coventry Airport, ex parte Phoenix Aviation ; R v Dover Harbour Board, ex parte Peter Gilder and Sons ; R v Associated British Ports, ex parte Plymouth City Council
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Dhudi Saleban Abdi
... ... Court of Appeal Peter Gibson, Otton LJJ Sir Roger Parker ... R Singh for the applicant ... I Macdonald QC ... of State for the Home Department ex parte Asif Mahmood KhanUNK [1985] 1 All ER 40: [1984] Imm AR 68. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Bakhtaur Singh [1986] ... ...
-
Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...offer no more than broad guidance as to how discretion is to be exercised in different typical situations: per Lord Bridge in R v IAT ex p Bakhtaur Singh [1986] 1 WLR 910, 917–918 [Having referred to Hosenball, Pearson and the above statement of Lord Bridge] In constitutional terms, it seem......