R v Uxbridge Magistrates' Court and Another, ex parte Adimi ; R v Crown Prosecution Service, ex parte Sorani ; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sorani ; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, ex parte Kaziu
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1999 |
| Date | 29 July 1999 |
[QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION]
REGINA v. UXBRIDGE MAGISTRATES' COURT and Another, Ex parte ADIMI
REGINA v. CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE , Ex parte SORANI
REGINA v. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT , Ex parte SORANI
REGINA v. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT and Another, Ex parte KAZIU
1999 July 13,
14,
15;
29
Simon Brown L.J. and Newman J.
Immigration - Illegal entrant - Application for asylum - Applicants carrying false documents on arrival in United Kingdom - Applicants arriving after third country transit or using United Kingdom as transit to another country - Delay in seeking asylum after arrival in United Kingdom - Applicants prosecuted for possession of false documents - Whether protected from prosecution -
The three applicants, A., S. and K., came to the United Kingdom at different times as asylum seekers. To evade the restrictions imposed by visa requirements and the consequences of carrier liability on their right to seek asylum, all were in possession of false passports and were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5 of the
On the applications: —
Held, granting the applications, (1) that the self-evident purpose of article 31(1), broadly construed in the light of the Convention as a whole, was to provide immunity for genuine refugees whose quest for asylum reasonably involved them in breaching domestic law; that where illegal entry, use of false documents or delay could be attributed to a bona fide desire to seek asylum, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, that conduct should be covered by article 31(1); that the requirements to come directly and to present himself without delay did not preclude a refugee from exercising some element of choice as to where and when he claimed asylum and the exercise of such choice was not to be characterised as forum shopping; and that, accordingly, neither a short term stopover en route to such intended sanctuary, nor a failure to present his claim immediately upon arrival, should justify a refugee's forfeiting the protection of article 31 where good cause was made out (post, pp. 443E–444C, 453F).
(2) That, in the absence of incorporation of article 31(1) of the Convention into domestic law, the United Kingdom's accession to the Convention nevertheless created a legitimate expectation in the minds of asylum seekers that they would be accorded the immunity from penalty conferred by article 31(1) in the circumstances indicated; that the obligation of meeting that expectation fell on the Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the executive arm of state and not on either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the courts; and that, therefore, it was for the Secretary of State to institute a policy appropriate to meet that obligation and against him that relief should be sought in respect of any alleged contravention (post, pp. 449E–450A, 451G–452A, 453F, 456H–457A).
(3) That whether or not A. travelled through Italy, and whether he claimed asylum on the night of his arrival or not until the following morning, he satisfied the conditions both of coming directly to the United Kingdom and of presenting himself without delay within the meaning of article 31(1); that, in the cases of S. and K., the fact that when found to be in possession of false papers they were transit passengers intending to fly on to Canada and did not intend to present themselves as asylum seekers in the United Kingdom did not preclude them from the benefit of article 31(1); that, therefore, none of the applicants should have been prosecuted; but that in the circumstances, and given the respondents' evident intention of ensuring the future application of article 31(1), it would not be appropriate to grant substantive or declaratory relief (post, pp. 452D–E, 453A–B, 462B–D).
Per Simon Brown L.J. The Secretary of State rather than the Crown Prosecution Service should assume responsibility for deciding when asylum seekers should be prosecuted in this class of case. Decisions should depend more upon considerations arising out of the proper administration and control of immigration and asylum than upon the need to suppress and punish criminal activity generally. Provided that the respondents henceforth recognise the true reach of article 31 and put in place procedures to ensure that those entitled to its protection are not prosecuted, at any rate to conviction, for offences committed in their quest for refugee status, the abuse of process jurisdiction is able to provide a sufficient safety net for those wrongly prosecuted (post, pp. 449E–450A).
Per Newman J. The protection contemplated by article 31 is, if afforded, in the nature of a pardon or grant of immunity from suit. Such relief lies with the executive to grant and is not within the class of immunity granted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. A legitimate expectation that the executive will consider whether to afford protection requires no request from the refugee for the duty upon the Secretary of State to consider the position to arise. He should do so whenever the facts disclosed to him give rise to an arguable case for consideration. His decision will be capable of challenge by judicial review, but if protection is not accorded, subject only to any defence of necessity or duress, the refugee can only raise the facts in mitigation (post, p. 461E–G).
The following cases are referred to in the judgments:
Adan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [
Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Phillip (
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh (
Phillip v. Director of Public Prosecutions [
Rayner (J. H.) (Mincing Lane) Ltd. v. Department of Trade and Industry [
Reg. v. Abdul-Hussain [
Reg. v. Boyes (
Reg. v. Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex parte Kebilene [
Reg. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, Ex parte Bennett [
Reg. v. Ministry of Defence, Ex parte Smith [
Reg. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, Ex parte Coughlan [
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Ahmed [
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Bugdaycay [
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Launder [
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Sivakumaran [
Rex v. Rudd (
Thomas v. Baptiste [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Attorney General's Reference (No. 1 of 1990) [
Khaboka v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [
Reg. v. Blandford Justices, Ex parte G. (An Infant) [
Reg. v. Boal [
Reg. v. Chief Constable of Kent, Ex parte L. [
Reg. v. Derby Crown Court, Ex parte Brooks (
Reg. v. Martin (Alan) [
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Jahangeer [
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Mehari [
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
73 cases
-
R v Asfaw (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees intervening)
...danger. Referring, in general terms, to the travaux, and to "the writings of well respected academics and commentators", Simon Brown LJ held, [2001] QB 667, 678E-F, that: "any merely short term stopover en route to such intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of the article, and t......
-
R v Payam Moradi Mirahessari Farein Vahdani
...before the Crown Court. For that uncontroversial submission the applicants are able to rely on R v Uxbridge Magistrates' Court, ex parte Adimi [2001] QB 667, and the CPS protocol for dealing with nature of this nature. They go on to submit, more controversially, that a deliberate decision w......
- Public Prosecutor v Amasifuen Tello Reyes
-
NS v Judge Anderson and Others
...ON THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1967 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT 2000 S2 R v UXBRIDGE MAGISTRATES COURT EX PARTE ADIMI 2001 QB 667 2000 3 WLR 434 NWOLE v MIN JUSTICE UNREP FINLAY GEOGHEGAN 31.10.2003 2003/42/10103 MIN FOR STATE FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS v TEOH 1994-1995......
Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
-
The Refugee's Defence
...The importance and necessity of this defence was famously recognised in R v Uxbridge Magistrates' Court and Another, ex parte Adimi [2001] QB 667. The Court of Appeal considered the absence of a defence which could successfully import the substance of the United Kingdom's international obli......
4 books & journal articles
-
ASSESSING REFUGEE PROTECTION CLAIMS AT AUSTRALIAN AIRPORTS: THE GAP BETWEEN LAW, POLICY, AND PRACTICE.
...October 2001) 8 [27] (Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Discussion Paper'), quoting R v Uxbridge Magistrates' Court; Ex parte Adimi [2001] QB 667, 677 (Simon Brown LJ) ('Ex parte Adimi'). Without a fair and efficient determination as to whether a person meets the refugee criteria, a state c......
-
'Miserable, laborious, and short': The lives of animals
...5-054, 12-026 and 12-029; T homas v Baptiste [1999] 3 WLR 249 ( PC) at 262H–263A ; R v Uxbridge Magist rates’ Court, ex par te Adimi [1999] 4 All ER 520 at 535; Hig gs v Minister of Na tional Security (Bah amas) [200 0] 2 AC 228 (PC) pa ra 12; R (on the applic ation of SG) v Secretar y of S......
-
Dissident Voices: Refugees, Human Rights and Asylum in Europe
...Islam and others vSecretary of State for the Home Department [1999] 2 All ER 545 (HL)Rv Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Adimi [1999] 4 All ER 520RK v Canada Comm. No. 42/1996Sarialtun, Aziz and Other v Germany Appl. No. 37534/97392 SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 9(3)03 Harvey (jl/d) 3/8/00 1:......
-
The European Union's response to smuggling of Syrian asylum seekers: the end of human rights?
...Free Movement of People. New York: Berghahan Books. R v. Uxbridge Magistrates Court and Another, Ex parte Adimi, [1999] EWHC Admin 765; [2001] Q.B. 667, United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales), 29 July 1999, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b6b41c.html [accessed 14 Aug......
