R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Mohamed Mohamed Daoud Draz
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1985 |
| Date | 04 November 1985 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Farquharson J
K S Nathan for the applicant.
J Laws for the respondent.
Deportation whether there can be an out of time appeal against a decision to initiate deportation proceedings, after the date on which the deportation order has been signed whether a decision to deport and a deportation order can be valid if never delivered personally to or brought to the notice of the person affected: Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972: rule 5(4)
Practice and Procedure service of documents whether the deeming provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978 apply where there is evidence to show that that which is thereby deemed to have occurred did not in fact occur: Immigration Appeals (Notices) Regulations 1972, regulations 2(3), 3,6: Interpretation Act 1978, s7.
The applicant was admitted to the United Kingdom as a visitor. He was subsequently refused an extension of his leave to remain. He appealed. Notice of the Hearing was sent to the address he had entered on his notice of appeal: it was returned to the Home Office undelivered. The appeal was heard in his absence and dismissed. Notice of that determination was sent to the same address and was likewise returned undelivered. In due course the Home Office notice advising him to leave the country was also returned undelivered. There was evidence that the applicant was living at the address to which these notices were sent at the material times. The applicant then moved. He did not advise the Home Office of his removal to another address. In due course the notice of intention to initiate deportation proceedings was sent by the Home Office to the applicant's last known address. That notice was returned to the Home Office by the postal authorities. A year later the deportation order was signed.
The applicant then married a British Citizen. He then approached the Home Office. He became aware for the first time of the deportation order. He sought to appeal against the decision to initiate deportation proceedings. The Home Office maintained that he no longer had a right of appeal because under the procedure rules no right of appeal existed where a deportation order was already in force. Judicial review was sought of the Home Office refusal to process his appeal. In the alternative it was claimed that the notice to initiate deportation proceedings was invalid because it had never been delivered to him personally or brought to his notice.
Held: 1) There was no right of appeal even by way of an out of time appeal against a decision to initiate deportation proceedings after the deportation order had itself been signed.
2) The effect of the deeming provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978 (replacing the Interpretation Act 1889) which were incorporated in the Immigration Appeals (Notices) Regulations 1972 was to establish good service of documents in the circumstances to which they applied: that deemed good service was not rebutted by evidence that in fact the documents were not served on the applicant.
Obiter: Any person in the position of an immigrant must know, once he makes application to the Home Office, whether it be for an extension or to exercise a right of appeal or for any other reason, an arrangement must be maintained for his receipt of any documents sent to him.
Farquharson J: This is an application for judicial review and mandamus to the Secretary of State directing him to reconsider the appellant's request to process an out of time appeal to the adjudicator as a preliminary issue pursuant to rule 5 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972. The application made by the appellant also asks for consequential relief following on from such an order.
The applicant is an Egyptian national born on 23 March 1951 and therefore is now aged 34 years. He arrived in this country first on 25 March 1978 when he had been given a one month visitor's permit. Subsequently that was the subject of a number of extensions and on 22 September 1978 the appellant applied to remain as a student. In due course this application, having first been granted, was the subject of a number of extensions which continued until 31 October 1979. In that same month of October 1979, on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Mariam Chumun and Another
...AR 80. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mehmet [1977] Imm AR 56. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Draz [1985] Imm AR 215. Practice and Procedure time limits for appealing to adjudicator and Tribunal when time begins to run whether, where it is shown that a rel......
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Yeboah
...V Minister for Civil ServiceELRUNK [1985] AC 374: [1984] 3 All ER 935. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Draz QBD [1985] Imm AR 215. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Yeboah QBD [1986] Imm AR 52. Deportation — notice of intention to deport — where......
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte pate Mehmet Tahir Onur
...ex parte Ekrem MehmetUNK (DC) [1977] Imm AR 56: [1977] 2 All ER 602. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Draz (QBD) [1985] Imm AR 215. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Yeboah (QBD) [1986] Imm AR 52. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Chummun ......
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Yeboah
...RahmaniELRUNK [1985] QB 1109: [1985] 1 All ER 1073 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Mohamed Mohamed Daoud Draz [1985] Imm AR 215. Refusal of admission to the United Kingdom whether justified where a deportation order is in force against the individual seeking admissio......