Surjit Singh Birring v Secretary of State for The Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWCA Civ J0222-15 |
| Docket Number | 1999/7547/C |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 February 2000 |
[2000] EWCA Civ J0222-15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE IMMIGRATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Laws
1999/7547/C
MR. M. GILL (instructed by Messrs. Tyndallwoods, Birmingham B2 5TS) appeared for the Appellant.
THE RESPONDENT was not present and was not represented.
( )
Tuesday, 22nd February 2000
MR. JUSTICE LAWS: I propose to give permission in this asylum case. The applicant comes from the Punjab. He was refused asylum by the Secretary of State. Ultimately, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal heard his appeal on 28th September 1998 but did not issue its determination until as late as 15th July 1999. I do not propose to criticise the tribunal because, sitting in this jurisdiction dealing with asylum and immigration cases, one knows the very grave pressures under which they have to operate. However, the passage of time undoubtedly caused problems.
An element in this case touching the tribunal's view of the applicant's merits is constituted by the case of Chindar Singh [1998] Imm. A.R. 551. That decision purported to indicate various aspects of the position in the Punjab but, after the case was decided and before the tribunal issued its determination in this case, matters moved on. There was a decision of this court in the case of Tarlochan Singh on 5th July 1999. In that case, the Court of Appeal seemingly described the approach taken by the tribunal in Chindar Singh to background matters relating to the Punjab as being inadequate; although, as Mr. Gill tells me, the reasoning in Chinder Singh had itself, in whole or in part, been founded upon it. Then in March 1999 there was another decision in the tribunal, in Kuldip Singh, in which his Honour Judge Pearl, who had also sat in Chindar Singh, seems expressly to have recognised that certain findings in Chindar Singh might well have been different if the tribunal had known what it knew by the time it came to determine Kuldip Singh.
In addition, Mr. Gill tells me that leave has been given (I think by Sedley L.J.) in another case to appeal to this court where very...
To continue reading
Request your trial