R v Vladic, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1998 |
| Date | 29 July 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Potter
Asylum - limited leave to remain in UK - power to deport immediately
When refusing an asylum claim by a person having limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom under section 7 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993, the Secretary of State for the Home Department was entitled to curtail the person's limited leave to remain with immediate effect, thus rendering him immediately liable to deportation and, simultaneously with the notice of curtailment of leave, to serve notice of his intention to make a deportation order under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment, dismissing an appeal by Miss Ana Vladic, a Croatian citizen, against the decision of Mr Justice Kay on July 31, 1997 whereby he quashed the Immigration Appeal Tribunal's decision refusing the secretary of state leave to appeal a special adjudicator's decision that the secretary of state's notice of intention to
make a deportation order against Miss Vladic was invalid and that, consequently, her appeal against the notice was not valid.
In February 1994 Miss Vladic was given leave to enter the United Kingdom and remain for two years as an au pair. In April she claimed political asylum.
On March 15, 1995 the secretary of state refused her claim and decided to curtail her limited leave under section 7(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Notices were not served on her at that time.
On May 9, 1995 she was sent a letter containing notice of the decision refusing asylum and to curtail her leave to remain, dated March 15, 1995, and notice of the secretary of state's intention to make a deportation order, dated May 9, 1995. The notices stated that Miss Vladic's leave was to expire with immediate effect.
She appealed under section 8(3) of the 1993 Act against the notice of intention to deport. The special adjudicator ruled that the secretary of state had no power, before the proposed deportee became an over-stayer, to form an intention to deport; that the notice was therefore invalid; and that consequently there was no valid appeal before him.
The secretary of state successfully applied for judicial review to quash the Immigration Appeal Tribunal's decision refusing him leave to appeal the adjudicator's decision. Miss Vladic appealed.
Section 7 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of Amit Sood) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...simultaneously are in fact served should not be legally significant. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Vladic [1998] Imm AR 542, this court, albeit in a different context, stated that it is not necessary to resort to arguments relating to the sequence in which various......
-
Sanusi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of State for the Home Department v Rehmat Khan and ors [1995] Imm AR 348. Anna Vladic v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1998] Imm AR 542. Asylum deportation deportation order signed before refusal of asylum application given to applicant whether lawful. Immigration Act 1971 ss. ......
-
R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court and Another v R v City of London Magistrates Court and Another
...the proper construction and application of this legislation �see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Vladic [1998] INLR 612 at 616�617 on the analogous use of immigration rules issued at the same time as an amending statute. Certainly it appears that the court in Keable ......
-
R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court ex parte Patel v R v City of London Magistrates Court ex parte Cropper
...the proper construction and application of this legislation—see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Vladic [1998] INLR 612 at 616–617 on the analogous use of immigration rules issued at the same time as an amending statute. Certainly it appears that the court in Keable h......