R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Mehta
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE BROWNE,LORD JUSTICE GEOFFREY LANE |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0516-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 26 July 1976 |
In the Matter of an application by Rashila Prataprai Mehta for leave to apply for orders of certiorari and Mandamus and
In the Matter of a determination of a preliminary issue of the Immigation Appeal Tribunal dated 10th December 1974 dismissing the appeal of the said Rashila Prataprai Mehta from the determination of the adjudicator
[1975] EWCA Civ J0516-5
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Browne and
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by Rashila Prataprai MEHTA
Mr. K.S. NATHAN (instructed by Messrs. Michael Freeman & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr. HARRY WOOLF (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
We need not trouble you, Mr. Nathan.
Miss Rashila Prataprai Mehta is a young lady from Tanzania. In August 1970 she was aged about 18. She went to the High Commissioner at Dar-es-Salaam and got an entry certificate to come to this country as a student. She was given leave to come for a period of 12 months. She came here and went to a technological college. She wanted to get her "A" levels. Before the year expired, she applied for an extension of time. She was given a short extension, for one month. She applied for a further extension. It was refused and she appealed to an adjudicator. Her appeal succeeded on a technical ground. But the Home office appealed to the Tribunal; who allowed the appeal and refused her an extension. That was on 5th November 1973. But the Home Office representative indicated to her solicitor that a further application would be sympathetically received. Thereupon her solicitors wrote two very reasonable letters to the Home Office, applying for an extension. One dated 12th November 1973. The other 27th November 1973. They pointed out that she was in receipt of a regular monthly allowance from Tanzania and she had enrolled as a student at a college at Harrow and had paid this tuition fee. They sent her passport, but asked for it back in time for her to visit relatives in India over Christmas. By some mistake or other, those two letters of 12th and 27th November were overlooked in the Home Office. Some one in the Home Office wrote a short letter to the solicitor on 4th December 1973 saying that they had had no further communication from them and that she had no, claim to remain in the United Kingdom. The writer from the Home Office added "and I must request that she leaves the United Kingdom within 14 days."
Her solicitors were flabbergasted. They had written two letters. They had received no reply. Yet here was a lettertelling her to go in 14 days. Her solicitors wrote and said they were flabbergasted. Eventually on 2nd January 1974 the Home Office discovered the earlier letters and wrote this ourt reply:-
"I wish to apologize for our letter of 4 December, which was sent due to a clerical error. The application of 27 November has been refused."
So there it was. The Home Office refused the application without giving any reasons. Just a blank refusal. The solicitors wrote again quite a reasonable letter on 8th January 1974. They reminded the Home Office that they had said that her application would be sympathetically received. They reminded them of her income from Tanzania and that she was studying at the Harrow Technical College. They finished the letter with this paragraph:-
"We realise that having made a decision this cannot be revoked, and that we would probably have to lodge an Appeal on behalf of our client. However, in case there is any opportunity for reconsideration on this point, we would invite you to do so."
The solicitors had 14 days to appeal from the Home Office decision. I should have thought they might quite reasonably expect a reply before they lodged an appeal. But the Home Office did not reply to the letter of 8th January 1974 at all. This was another oversight. I suppose her solicitors ought to have countered that oversight by lodging an appeal within the 14 days; but unfortunately they did not. They waited for a reply and it did not come. So they felt that they must lodge an appeal. And they did so on 23rd January 1974: and followed it up by a telephone message on 25th January 1974. Only to find that the Home Office contended that the appeal was out of time because it ought to have been lodged within 14 days from 2ndJanuary and It had not been done.
Before the adjudicator the Home Office took as a preliminary point that she was out of time. Her lawyers asked that the case should proceed. They relied on Rule 11 sub-rule 4 of the Immigration Appeals Procedure Rules 1972, which says:-
"The appellate authority shall not be required to dismiss the appeal but may allow It to proceed if the authority is of the opinion: that, by reason of special circumstances, it is just and right so to do."
Mis Mehta's advisers asked that that provision should be applied In her favour, but the adjudicator refused, giving his reasons in these words:-
"The question that remains is whether the facts in this case amount to special circumstances making it just and right to allow the appeal to proceed. I do not think that I can take account of whatever merits there may be in the substantive appeal. I think that I should be concerned only with any special circumstances that prevented the appellant or her representative from giving notice of appeal within the permitted period. No such circumstances, it seems to me, exist in this case. Instead of lodging an appeal the solicitors made a last attempt to persuade the Home office to reconsider their decision. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the solicitor appealing while continuing to make representations to the Home Office during the period before hearing."
So the adjudicator held that she was barred by time. She appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. They affirmed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Kalsi and Others v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...event, the Secretary of State had a residual discretion to do what was fair and what justice required. He relied on R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Mehta [1975] 2 All ER 1087. A mistake by a solicitor could amount to special circumstances. A qualified for leave. People w......
-
AK and Others (Tribunal appeal – Out of time) Bulgaria v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...During the course of argument, reference was made to Akewushola v SSHD [1999] Imm AR 594, R v IAT ex parte Nelson [2001] Imm AR 76, R v IAT ex parte Mehta [1976] Imm AR 38, and R v Bloomsbury and Marylebone County Court ex parte Villerwest Limited [1976] 1 WLR 362. When can an application f......
-
A(J) v Minister for Justice
...cannot take precedence over the express terms of the Statute. The case of Mehta -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [1975] 2ALL E.R. 1084 was invoked as an aid as to how the Court should approach the difficulties of the Applicant from the instant case. What was in issue in th......
-
R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Ekrem Mehmet (No 2)
...26, post. 12 Regulation 3(4) is set out on p 63, post. 13R v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex p Rashila Prataprai MehtaUNK, [1976] Imm. A.R. 38; sub nom Mehta v The Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK, [1975] 2 All ER 1084, d 16.5.75. 14 The material part of r 11(4) is set out ......