R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bamtefa
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 1995 |
| Date | 19 July 1995 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Brooke J
N Daniel for the applicant
R Singh for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgment:
R v County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee ex parte RossiELRUNK [1956] 1 QB 682: [1956] 1 All ER 670.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mariam Chummun and anr [1987] Imm AR 92.
Edward Yeboah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] Imm AR 414.
Mohamed Draz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] Imm AR 414.
Appeal application for leave to appeal to the Tribunal not received within 14 days of determination being sent whether Tribunal correct to conclude application received out of time whether sent means sent or received. Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 r. 15(2).
Application for leave to move for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal that an application for leave to appeal was received out of time. The determination by the adjudicator was sent to the parties on 10 June 1994: it was received by the applicant on 15 June 1994: application for leave to appeal was made on 29 June 1994.
Counsel sought to distinguish the circumstances of the case from those that obtained in Yeboah.
Held
1. Yeboah was clear authority for the proposition that sent meant sent and not received.
2. It was important that the Tribunal had a clear procedural framework within which to work and did not have to occupy itself with calculations dependent on when an applicant claimed he had received a determination.
Brooke J: This is an application on behalf of Akinyemi Bamtefa for leave to apply for judicial review in relation to the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dated 20 July 1994, affirming an earlier decision dated 13 July 1994 that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was not submitted within the required time limit as stated in rule 15(2) of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984.
This is a very short point of construction of the relevant rule. I need not say very much about the facts of the case. The notice of intention to deport the applicant was made as early as December 1991, but an earlier appeal to an adjudicator, which was dismissed, resulted in the Tribunal remitting the matter to a new adjudicator. The new adjudicator heard the matter on 5 May 1994. The appeal was dismissed on 10 June 1994. The determination of the adjudicator was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MB (Para 317: in-country Applications; Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Imm AR 17 Pawar, a decision of the Court of Appeal on 29 July 1993 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bamtefa [1995] Imm AR 610 R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Bastiampillai [1983] Imm AR 1 Uppal v Secretary of State for the Home Department TH/63164/93 (11275),......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2006-12-08, [2006] UKAIT 91 (MB (para 317: in country applications))
...of authorities, including R v IAT ex parte Bastiampillai [1983] 2 ER 844, Lana v SSHD [1997] Imm AR 17, R v SSHD ex parte Bamtefa [1995] Imm AR 610 and in In re Barretto [1994] QB 392. He placed particular emphasis on the last and on the entry under “is” in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary in s......
-
Mb (Para 317: in Country Applications)
...of authorities, including R v IAT ex parte Bastiampillai [1983] 2 ER 844, Lana v SSHD [1997] Imm AR 17, R v SSHD ex parte Bamtefa [1995] Imm AR 610 and in In re Barretto [1994] QB 392. He placed particular emphasis on the last and on the entry under “is” in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary in s......