Tag Eldin Ramadan Bashir & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Foskett |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 954 (Admin) |
| Date | 28 April 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/879/2015 |
[2016] EWHC 954 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Foskett
Case No: CO/879/2015
R on the application of
Raza Husain QC, Tom HickmanandJason Pobjoy (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Claimants
Thomas Roe QC and Penelope Nevill (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Based on written submissions
SUPPLEMENTAL RULING
The draft judgment in this case was sent in the usual way to all legal representatives by e-mail from my Clerk at 11.05 on Friday, 22 April, the parties having been told at shortly before midday on Monday, 18 April, to expect it "in the next few days." The e-mail contained the following passage about the draft judgment:
"It is, as you might expect, quite substantial and the Judge understands that it may take a little longer than the usual 48 hours to check for corrections. He proposes that it should be 3 days, but if that proves not to be long enough when you see it, please inform me as soon as possible."
There were communications thereafter about how the confidentiality of the draft judgment could be maintained given the number of parties involved and about the identities of those who would see it prior to its formal handing down. This was resolved by Thursday, 21 April.
When the draft judgment was sent to the parties' legal representatives, my Clerk indicated on my behalf that "if it can be achieved, the Judge would appreciate receiving any suggested corrections by 4 pm on Tuesday, 26 April, so that, all being well, he can hand down the final version on Thursday of next week."
It is quite clear that I was not being prescriptive about these timings given the length of the judgment and its nature and would have been open to requests for an extension of time had any been requested or indeed to delay the date of the proposed hand down if some more substantive point emerged.
Both sides sent suggested corrections to me, those sent on behalf of the Defendant arriving at 16.49 on Tuesday, 26 April. They were of a nature that suggested the judgment had been read carefully.
In the usual way I made some alterations to the draft judgment to accommodate the suggestions made by both sides and my Clerk indicated on my behalf by e-mail timed at 09.50 yesterday that the judgment would be handed down formally at 2 pm on Thursday, in line with what had been said when the draft judgment was sent to the parties. I understood that arrangements had to be made to communicate the gist of the decision to the claimants in Cyprus – and indeed doubtless to others on the Defendant's side – one hour before the formal hand down and that was one reason for postponing it until 2 pm.
At no stage until 16.15 yesterday had I received any intimation that either party was contemplating asking me to review any aspect of the draft judgment before the final version was handed down. Such an invitation is not an unknown occurrence, but relatively rare, in my experience. Nonetheless, if a party represented by experienced Counsel and solicitors asks a judge to give the party a little extra time before the formal hand down of a judgment to consider whether to issue such an invitation, many judges would be accommodating, certainly in a case such as this.
As indicated above, all parties knew from Friday, 22 April, when I hoped to hand down the judgment. At 16.15 yesterday, I received an e-mail from Mr Roe asking me to "reconsider one aspect of your draft judgment." His e-mail was suitably apologetic indicating that "[it] has taken some time to digest the very substantial draft and to discuss its implications." He has amplified that subsequently (see paragraph 11 below).
My Clerk responded to him by e-mail timed at 17.22 yesterday indicating that I was not minded to accede to his request, but (a) would consider the matter overnight and (b) await any representations from the Claimants' advisers. She indicated that I would like to hear from the Claimants' advisers by 09.00 this morning with a response from Mr Roe by 10.00 so that I could consider the matter this morning. In fact Mr Husain e-mailed me at 18.27 yesterday evening with his submissions as to why I should not respond favourably to the request. Mr Roe responded at 09.39 this morning.
As will appear when the full judgment is read, I have rejected some very significant parts of the legal case advanced on behalf of the Claimants and have quashed the decision of the Secretary of State, made by her officials, on what I have described as a "very narrow" basis [309, 374 and 380]. It is one feature of that "very narrow" basis that I am being asked to reopen for oral argument.
I have to say that I found it difficult to accept that the point that is now sought to be made on the Defendant's behalf could not have been identified sooner: it would have been obvious on a first reading of the draft judgment which I had imagined all interested parties would have completed on Friday or over the weekend. However, Mr Roe has candidly told me that other professional commitments meant that he was unable to study the judgment properly until Tuesday morning and the point was identified on Tuesday afternoon. Miss Nevill was away. I have no wish to be critical, and I appreciate the exigencies of a busy practice, but this case is important from the point of view of all parties and I am a little surprised that it was not until Tuesday that the judgment was read fully. However, irrespective of that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Bashir and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
... ([2016] EWHC 954 (Admin) and [2017] EWCA Civ 397) England, High Court, Queens Bench Division. Court of Appeal. (Foskett (Jackson, Briggs and Irwin LJJ) Regina (Bashir and Others) and Secretary of State for the Home Department 1 Treaties — Application — Colonies and dependent territories — ......
-
R (on the application of Tag Eldin Ramadan Bashir and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...respondents into the United Kingdom must be consistent with the Convention. Furthermore, as Foskett J recognised in the High Court ( [2016] 1 WLR 4613, para 322ff), a failure by the Secretary of State correctly to apply the Convention may have consequences in domestic public law, as under ......
-
R (on the application of Tag Eldin Ramadan Bashir & Others) (Appellants/Cross-Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent/Cross-Appellant) Sovereign Base Area Authority (Interested Party)
...from the judgment of Foskett J given on 28 April 2016, reported as R (Bashir and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] 1 WLR 4613. For clarity, I will refer to the parties as Claimants and Defendant. 2 In 1998 the Claimants were rescued from a dangerous Lebanese fishin......