R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Yurteri
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 1995 |
| Date | 19 January 1995 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Queen's Bench Division
Court of Appeal
Dyson J
Lord Denning MR Scarman, Bridge LJJ
Miss S Harrison for the applicant
Miss D Rose for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgement:
Makhan Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department (of 14 December 1976) [1995] Imm AR 299.
Rhemtulla v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [197980] Imm AR 168.
Deportation overstayer whereabouts unknown notice of intention to deport served on the file deportation order signed and likewise served on the file practice subsequently considered unfair and abandoned whether Secretary of State's refusal to revoke deportation order unreasonable. Immigration Act 1971 s. 3(5)(a): Immigration Appeals (Notices) Regulations 1984 r. 3(4).
The applicant for leave to move for judicial review was a citizen of Northern Cyprus. He had been admitted to the United Kingdom as a visitor. In 1982 he became an overstayer and went to ground. In 1983 the Secretary of State decided to initiate deportation proceedings against him: the notice was served on the file, his whereabouts being unknown: in 1985 a deportation order was signed and likewise served on the file. That procedure was made pursuant to regulation 3(4) of the 1984 Notices Regulations.
Subsequently that practice was abandoned, it being considered unfair for those affected to lose their rights of appeal.
The applicant came to the notice of the authorities in April 1994 when he applied for his position to be regularised and for indefinite leave to remain. The Secretary of State refused to revoke the deportation order.
Before the court it was argued that the Secretary of State's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. It was also submitted that regulation 3(4) of the notices regulations was unfair and contrary to natural justice.
Held
1. Following Makhan Singh* and Rhemtullah regulation 3(4) of the notices regulations was intra vires and its validity could not be challenged.
2. On the facts the Secretary of State's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
Dyson J: This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State for the Home Department's decision of 8 December 1994,
whereby he refused to revoke a deportation order that he had signed in respect of this applicant on 2 September 1985.The facts can be shortly stated. The applicant is a national of the Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus. He first entered the United Kingdom in November 1981 as a visitor. He was given leave to enter for one month and within due time he applied for and was granted leave to remain as a student for three months. At the expiry of that leave on 18 February 1982 he did not return to Northern Cyprus. He remained within the Uniited Kingdom and became an overstayer.
The Secretary of State made a decision to deport the applicant in 1983. He served notice of that decision on the file on 11 November 1983. The deportation order itself was, as I have already said, signed on 2 September 1985 and this too was served on the file. This procedure of service on the file was made pursuant to regulation 3(4) of the Immigration Appeals (Notices) Regulations 1984. The reason why this course was adopted was because the applicant had failed to maintain contact with the Home Office and, despite their enquiries, the respondents were unable to trace him.
I have been given some information this morning as to the attempts made by the immigration authorities to trace the applicant; at addresses of relations and places where he was thought to work. It seems that in addition to searching the documents on the file, service was also effected at various addresses. This application, however, has been made and I shall treat it as if the applicant did not, in fact, receive the notice of the decision to deport, or, in fact, the deportation order itself.
The significance of this is that the applicant would have had 14 days from the date when he received notice of the decision to deport to appeal that decision. Once the deportation order itself was made there was no longer a right of appeal. Hence this application.
The existence and the whereabouts of the applicant was unknown to the respondents until 15 April 1994 when he applied, through his then representative, for indefinite leave to remain. This was on the basis of his long residency in the United Kingdom, his strong connections with the United Kingdom in the shape of his employment, and the ownership of property here, as well as emotional ties in the form of friendships. He is unmarried, apparently has no long-standing partner and has no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Mustak Popatia; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Chye-Poh Chew
...Musah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] Imm AR 236. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Yurteri [1995] Imm AR 296. Markhan Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] Imm AR 299. Deportation overstayers applicants went to ground deportatio......
-
The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others
...to deport. 58 A similar argument was advanced before Dyson J in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Yurteri [1995] Imm AR 296. In 1983 notice of intention to make a deportation order had been served on file. A deportation order was made in 1985 and likewise served on fi......
-
The Queen Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another ex parte Chye-poh Chew
...to deport. 87 A similar argument was advanced before Dyson J in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Yurteri [1995] Imm AR 296. In 1983 notice of intention to make a deportation order had been served on file. A deportation order was made in 1985 and likewise served on fi......