Sambasivam v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 1999 |
| Date | 28 October 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Potter and Mr Justice Wilson.
Asylum - delay in adjudicator's decision - issue of credibility - re-hearing merited
In immigration cases heard by the special adjudicator, where important issues of credibility arose, a delay of over three months between hearing and determination would merit remittance for re-hearing, unless, by reason of particular circumstances, it was clear that the eventual outcome would be the same.
The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing the appeal of Mr Jeyakumaran Sambasivam from the dismissal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, dated September 18, 1999, of his appeal from the refusal by the special adjudicator of his claim for asylum on the ground, inter alia, that he did not have a well founded fear of persecution.
The grounds of appeal included that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal should have remitted the matter to another adjudicator for a fresh hearing since the case concerned the credibility of the appellant but the decision was not promulgated by the special adjudicator for almost four months from the date of hearing.
Mr Ian Lewis for the appellant; Miss Lisa Giovannetti for the Home Secretary.
LORD JUSTICE POTTER, having reviewed the relevant case law, said that the decision in Mario v Secretary of State for the Home Department((1998) Imm AR 281) was a useful statement of guidance to practitioners upon the usual attitude and likely decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in a case where an issue essential to the disposition of the claim for asylum depended upon a careful weighing of the credibility of the applicant,
Yet, in the present case, it appeared that the delay between the hearing date and the preparation of the determination exceeded three months.
In the absence of special or particular circumstances, that was plainly a useful and proper rule of thumb which, in the experience of the tribunal, it was broadly just to apply, for the twin reasons that substantial delay between hearing and preparation of the determination rendered the assessment of credibility issues unsafe, and that such a delay tended to undermine the loser's confidence in the correctness of the decision once delivered.
That said, his Lordship also considered it plain that the reference in Secretary of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v McConnell (Mark) and United Estates
...were 31 informations, 21 witnesses, and 25 documentary exhibits. Mr. Phipps Q.C. brought to our attention the case of Sambasivam v Secretary of State for Home Department The Times Law Report published November 10, 1999, delivered October 28, 1999. (Roch and Potter, L.JJ & Wilson J). Court o......
-
AZ (Error of law: Jurisdiction; PTA practice) Iran
...Judge could not be expected to retain a proper level of recall of the oral evidence after four months (sic); Mario [1998] Imm AR 281 and Sambasivam [1999] IATRF 1999/0419/4.” 21 Both sides accept (and we agree) that Judge Holmes' decision on permission was to grant permission to appeal on ......
-
R SS (Sri Lanka) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...an appeal lay to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (“IAT”). It is apparent from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sambasivam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] Imm AR 85; [2000] IMLR 105, that in the period before that case was decided a practice had developed in the IA......
-
Arusha and Demushi (Deprivation of Citizenship - Delay)
...Tribunal can be faulted for not pursuing for itself the specific issues now raised in the grounds. 34 We now turn to the issue of delay. In Sambasivam the Court of Appeal referred to the jurisprudence of the IAT summarised by the Tribunal in Mario [1998] Imm AR 281 in the context of an asy......