R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Selladurai Jeyakumaran
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 1985 |
| Date | 28 June 1985 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Queen's Bench Division
Taylor J
K S Nathan for the applicant
J Laws for the respondent
Taylor J: This is an application for judicial review by Selladurai Jeyakumaran: He seeks review of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 10 February 1984, refusing him asylum in the United Kingdom, and a decision of an immigration officer of 17 February 1984, refusing him leave to enter as a visitor or, alternatively, as a student.
The applicant, aged 34, is a citizen of Sri Lanka. He is by race a Tamil. He initially came to the United Kingdom on 23 January 1975, when he was given leave to enter for a period of 12 months as a student. He studied first at the South East London College and obtained a Higher National Diploma in production engineering in August 1977. His leave was extended, and he studied further at the Polytechnic of South London and the Institute of Management Services, obtaining diplomas from each. His leave to stay was further extended until 30 September 1982. He completed a foundation course at the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants but in August 1982 failed part I of the Institute's qualifying exams. Perhaps because of that, and also because he thought there were job opportunities for him, he left the United Kingdom on 24 September 1982 and returned to Sri Lanka. There he continued to study and had a series of short employments. The last of these had run some three weeks when, on 24 July 1983, racial riots broke out in Colombo. The applicant and his parents were forced to leave their house. He and his father were beaten up. They went to a refugee camp in Colombo for a fortnight. They were then taken by boat to Jaffna and later to a village called Manipai in the north of Sri Lanka.
The applicant says that there were violent racial incidents between Tamils and Sinhalese. The Tamil minority were being harassed and the armed forces were looking for Tamil youngsters, so the applicant went into hiding. Subsequently he returned to the family house in Colombo and found that it had been looted and badly damaged. While seeking to arrange repairs, the applicant was warned by neighbours to stay away, for fear of injury. Anti-Tamil slogans were sprayed on the house.
In these circumstances, the applicant decided to obtain a ticket and travel to the United Kingdom, which he did on 9 October 1983. On his arrival on 10 October, he was given temporary admission because of the unrest in Sri Lanka. The applicant was interviewed by immigration officers, after which he was told that it was unlikely he would be permitted to enter as a visitor or student. However, in view of the possibility of an asylum claim, the immigration officers referred his case to the Home Office in pursuance of rule 73 of HC 169. Representations were also made by a Member of Parliament on behalf of the applicant by letter dated 2 November 1983.
On 10 February 1984, the Minister indicated by letter that the claim to asylum was considered to be without foundation. On 17 February 1984, the immigration authorities refused the applicant leave to enter as a visitor or as a student and stated an intention to give directions for his removal.
Mr Nathan realistically abandoned the applicant's claim to enter as a student. I need, therefore, say no more about it, except that the respondent points to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amadasun v Minister for Justice and Others
...[1987] A.C. 514 and of Lord Justice May in his judgment in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Jeyakumaran [1994] Imm. A.R. 45. 43 In Reg. v. Home Secretary Ex p. Bugdaycay [1987] A.C. 514, Lord Bridge referred to the necessity in cases where the administrative decisi......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2008-03-25, [2008] UKAIT 23 (KH (Article 15(c) Qualification Directive))
...of an approach to the analogous concept of persecution which in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Jeyakumaran [1994] Imm AR 45 was found by Taylor J to erect far too high a threshold. There is no reason to think that, in order for a threat to be “individual”, it must b......
-
Horvath v Secretary of State and Another
...Taylor J (as he then was) put it as long ago as 1985, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Selladurai Jeyakumaran [1994] Imm AR 45, at 48, 'Again, I ask what solace it is to the victim to know he is being persecuted by soldiers out of control rather than by the Govern......
-
Hardeep Singh Sangha v Secretary of state for the home department
...ex parte Baljit Singh [1994] Imm AR 42. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Selladurai Jeyakumaran (of 28 June 1985) [1994] Imm AR 45. Karamjit Singh Chahal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1994] Imm AR 107. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex ......