R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Aziz
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 1999 |
| Date | 30 March 1999 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Latham J
H Southey for the applicant
Miss L Giovannetti for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgment:
Ladd v MarshallWLRUNK [1954] 1 WLR 1489: [1954] 3 All ER 745.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Zaman and anr [1982] Imm AR 61.
Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] Imm AR 97.
Borrisov v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] Imm AR 524.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Arslan [1997] Imm AR 63.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Balendran [1998] Imm AR 162: [1998] INLR 158.
Appeal dismissal by adjudicator application for leave to appeal to Tribunal fresh evidence by way of three reports submitted Tribunal refused leave to appeal fresh evidence would be admitted only in exceptional circumstances whether Tribunal's approach proper.
The applicant for judicial review was a citizen of Tanzania, resident on Pemba. He was refused asylum by the Secretary of State. The special adjudicator dismissed his appeal on the ground that the internal flight option was open to him. On application for leave to appeal to the Tribunal three reports were submitted, suggesting that internal flight was not a reasonable course.
The Tribunal refused leave to appeal, stating that fresh evidence would only be admitted in exceptional circumstances and the applicant could, had he so chosen, have ensured that the material be placed before the special adjudicator.
Counsel challenged the Tribunal chairman's approach to fresh evidence.
Held:
1. The rules in Ladd v Marshall were not wholly appropriate for asylum cases.
2. Following Arsaln the approach set out by the Tribunal in refusing leave was too restrictive.
Latham J: This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal dated 17 August 1998. The Tribunal refused the applicant leave to appeal against a decision of a special adjudicator.
The circumstances under which this application arises are as follows: the applicant is a national of Tanzania who lived on the island of Pemba, which is part of Zanzibar, in Tanzania.
He arrived in the United Kingdom on 7 April 1995 and claimed asylum immediately. He was interviewed on that date and asked for basic details of his asylum claim. He said that he had been discriminated against because he had Arabic looks. He stated that he had been arrested four times during 1993 and 1994. He also stated that he was a supporter of the Civil United Front and that he attended meetings.
On 8 May 1995 he was interviewed in more detail about his asylum claim and explained the problems that were presented to people in his situation in Pemba. He said he had been arrested as a result of his political involvement. He said he had been tortured whilst detained and that he had left Tanzania because he had been told that the police were looking for him. His application for asylum was refused by the Secretary of State in a letter dated 10 November 1996. The Secretary of State essentially refused his application for two reasons: firstly, he did not accept the applicant's account as credible. Secondly, he took the view there was no reason, in any event, why he should not have moved to the mainland and taken, therefore, advantage of what is known in the language of asylum cases as internal flight.
He appealed against that decision. The appeal was heard by a special adjudicator on 29 July 1998. The applicant was unrepresented and did not give evidence. The circumstances under which that arose were as follows: the applicant said that his representatives should be attending. They were a firm of solicitors whom he named. As a result, the special adjudicator adjourned the matter for a time to enable the applicant to consider his position. He told him that he could ask for an adjournment to obtain alternative legal representation or to continue with the appeal hearing in person and give his evidence.
When the matter came back before the special adjudicator, the applicant asked for an adjournment. He said that he had spoken to his solicitors who would not be continuing to act for him because they were without instructions and had not received payment. They had asked him for money to pay counsel nine months ago, after they had prepared the case. He only contacted them the week before the hearing and had still not paid any money for counsel.
He told the adjudicator that he did not know about the availability of free advice. The special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.O.I. v Minister for Justice
... ... IN THE MATTER OF THE REFUGEE ACT 1996 THE IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 AND THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ... R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT EX PARTE ONIBIYO 1996 2 AER 901 TEWEDROS TADESSE HAILE v GRATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2002 INLR 283 LADD v MARSHALL 1954 1 WLR 1489 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL EX PARTE AZIZ LATHAM 1999 EWHC 276 30.3.1999 ... ...
-
R (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...decision, so long as the evidence was credible and likely to affect the final outcome. See for instance the judgments of Latham J in R v IAT ex p Aziz [1999] Imm AR 476, 482 and of this court in R v IAT ex p Askhosravi [2001] EWCA Civ 977 at [23]. 46 Rule 18(11) of the Immigration and Asylu......
-
FA (Fresh Evidence)
...in the Court of Appeal, the decision of the Tribunal was quashed, on 14 th June 2001. It said that the approach in R v IAT ex parte Aziz [1999] INLR 355 was correct. This case discussed the relevance of Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 to an asylum claim. Lord Denning had said at p1491: “I......
-
Azkhosravi, R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal
...its discretion. Reliance is placed on a decision of Latham J, as he then was, in Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Aziz [1999] INLR 355. In that case reference was made to the well-known statement of Lord Denning in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, at 1491: "In order to justif......