Warnakulasuriya
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 528 (Admin) |
| Date | 21 May 2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/151/2001 |
[2001] EWHC 528 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MR Justice Henriques
CO/151/2001
Application For Permission
MS G FIELDEN (instructed by Perera & Co, 301 Romford Road, Forest Gate, London, E7 9HA) appeared on behalf of the claimant
MR S WILKEN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the defendant
(This transcript was prepared without the assistance of documents)
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, permission having been refused on the papers by Forbes J on 7th March of this year.
There is nothing in the certification point. The Special Adjudicator correctly examined whether the Secretary of State had complied with the requirements for certification. He must see whether the certification procedure has been complied with and did so. At page 16 the Special Adjudicator said this:
"I find that the requirements for certification have been met because of his failure to give a reasonable explanation for failure to produce a passport upon arrival…"
The explanation given upon arrival was this: the agent, Wothana, took the passport and that is why the passport was not there for production. The Special Adjudicator treated that as not a reasonable explanation for failure to produce a passport and, in my judgment, she was perfectly entitled so to do.
The claimant also challenges the Special Adjudicator's substantive determination, namely that the claimant's evidence was not credible. This is yet a further renewed application where it is necessary to refer to ex parte Dauda [1995] Imm AR 600. The court should be very slow to interfere with an adjudicator's findings of credibility in the circumstances where she has had the benefit of hearing evidence from the witness. She found the whole account not credible. She found that the account of his capture on board his ship was not credible. The account of his detention in a Tiger camp was not credible. The account of his escape from the camp was implausible. The claimant's account of how he returned home after his escape differs from...
To continue reading
Request your trial