R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Mahmut Cakabay (Cakabay No 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 1997 |
| Date | 16 December 1997 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Queen's Bench Division
Lightman J
A Nicol QC and M Henderson for the applicant
R Plender QC for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgment:
Ademola Onibiyo v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK [1996] 2 All ER 901: [1996] Imm AR 370.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Senathirajah Ravichandran (No 2) [1996] Imm AR 418.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Coskun Boybeyi (unreported, QBD, 24 January 1997).*
Yolanda Ward v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1997] Imm AR 236.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Hamid Habibi [1997] Imm AR 391.
R v Immigration Appellate Authority ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department [1998] Imm AR 52.
Asylum application refused appeal dismissed fresh evidence submitted to Secretary of StateSecretary of State refused to treat fresh evidence as constituting a fresh application for asylum the basis on which that refusal might be challenged on judicial review whether on the facts a fresh application had been made. HC 395 para. 346.
The applicant for judicial review was a citizen of Turkey. His application for asylum had been refused: his appeal to a special adjudicator had been dismissed. His representatives submitted fresh evidence to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State refused to accept that the fresh evidence provided the basis for a fresh claim for asylum. The representatives sought to appeal against that refusal to the appellate authorities and also initiated judicial review proceedings. Lightman J held that the appellate authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal (see R v Immigration Appellate Authority ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department [1988] Imm AR 52).
In respect of the application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to accept the fresh evidence as a fresh claim for asylum, it was argued that the court should consider the precedent facts and not confine itself to reviewing the Secretary of State's decision on Wednesbury principles.
Held:
1. Following the established case law the decision of the Secretary of State could only be challenged on Wednesbury principles.
2. On the facts, the Secretary of State's decision was reasonable. The detention of relatives of the applicant for aiding guerrillas in the war zone did not constitute persecution and gave no grounds for the applicant fearing persecution: the applicant's return to Turkey without a passport and enquiries that might reveal his background and his status as a failed asylum seeker would not lead to persecution.
Lightman J: On 22 October 1997 I gave judgment granting to the Secretary of State for the Home Department a declaration that Mr Cakabay was not entitled to appeal to the special adjudicator against a refusal by the Secretary of State to treat a second application for leave to enter the United Kingdom on asylum grounds by Mr Cakabay as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial