R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Erkan Akyol Huseyin Sahim and Hasan Polat
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 August 1990 |
| Date | 07 August 1990 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Kennedy J
A Nicol for the applicants
R Jay for the respondent
Case referred to in the judgment:
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Khalil Yassine and ors [1990] Imm AR 354.
Political asylum refusal of Secretary of State to consider applications on their merits applicants required to make applications for asylum in first safe country they had reached whether Secretary of State entitled so to act after policy statement in Parliament whether, following Yassine the applicants had a legitimate expectation that the Secretary of State would follow the conclusion of the Executive Committee of UNHCR whether the policy embodied in the Parliamentary statement reflected a change in policy the Dublin Convention. HC 251 para. 75: UNHCR, Executive Committee, Conclusions (1980), para. h(4).
The applicants for judicial review were Kurds, Turkish nationals. They had travelled to the United Kingdom through Italy or France. On arrival in the United Kingdom they sought political asylum. The Secretary of State declined to consider their applications, requiring them to apply in Italy and France, safe countries in which they had stayed for brief periods en route to the United Kingdom. His refusals, couched in those terms were made after a ministerial statement in Parliament outlining the policy to be followed in such cases. It appeared that the Secretary of State may also have taken account of the Dublin Convention, which was not yet in force. Counsel for the applicants argued that the Secretary of State's approach was contrary to Wednesbury principles: he also contended that following ex parte Yassine the applicants had had a legitimate expectation that the Secretary of State would consider their applications: in ex parte Yassine the Secretary of State had apparently accepted the principle embodied in the relevant conclusion of the Executive Committee of the United Nation High Commission for Refugees. For the Secretary of State it was argued that there was nothing unreasonable or improper in his approach, and moreover, the ministerial statement did not represent any shift in policy.
Held:
1. There was nothing unreasonable in the approach of the Secretary of State who was entitled to follow the policy set out in the ministerial statement albeit, to the court, it did appear that that might indicate a shift in policy from what had been accepted in ex parte Yassine.
2. On the facts, the applicants could not have had any legitimate expectation, derived from ex parte Yassine, that the Secretary of State would consider their applications.
Kennedy J: These are three applications for leave to move for judicial review, one of which differs substantially on its facts from the others. All three relate to applications made by Kurdish natives of Turkey, who have in the end arrived in the United Kingdom.
The first, Mr Akyol, arrived in the United Kingdom on 23 July 1990. The second and third, Mr Polat and Mr Sahim arrived in the United Kingdom on 2 August 1990. They arrived together. None of the three came directly from Turkey to the United Kingdom. In the case of Mr Akyol he left Turkey on 10 July 1990, and he made his way to the United Kingdom by way of Italy. He was in Italy for some 10 to 15 days very much in temporary accommodation, if not in hiding. I think...
To continue reading
Request your trial