A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. Accordingly an order applying to both men and women was not justified and had to be struck down.
Courts may consider whether delegated legislation is in accordance with statutory authority, or whether it is otherwise unlawful, irrespective of the views to that effect expressed by Ministers or others in Parliament.
Lord Phillips MR said: ‘Legislation is the function of Parliament, and an Act of Parliament is immune from scrutiny by the courts, unless challenged on the ground of conflict with European law. Subordinate legislation derives its legality from the primary legislation under which it is made. Primary legislation that requires subordinate legislation to be approved by each House of Parliament does not thereby transfer from the courts to the two Houses of Parliament, the role of determining the legality of the subordinate legislation.’ and
‘Whether there was in general a serious risk of persecution was a question which might give rise to a genuine difference of opinion on the part of two rational observers of the same evidence. A judicial review of the Secretary of State’s conclusion needed to have regard to that considerable margin of appreciation. There was no question here of conducting a rigorous examination that required the Secretary of State to justify his conclusion. If the applicants were to succeed in showing that the designation of Pakistan was illegal, they had to demonstrate that the evidence clearly established that there was a serious risk of persecution in Pakistan and that this was a state of affairs that was a general feature in that country. For a risk to be serious it would have to affect a significant number of the populace.’
Lord Phillips MR, Peter Gibson, Latham LJJ
Times 24-May-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] Imm AR 529, [2002] QB 129, [2001] INLR 645, [2001] 3 WLR 323, [2001] EWCA Civ 789
Bailii
Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Countries) Order 1996 No 2671
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Nov-2004
The applicant alleged that the fast track system of selecting and dealing with unmeritorious asylum claims was unfair and unlawful.
Held: The system was not inherently unfair and therefore unlawful and clear written instructions would suffice . .
Cited – The Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Nov-2004
The applicant alleged that the fast track system of selecting and dealing with unmeritorious asylum claims was unfair and unlawful.
Held: The system was not inherently unfair and therefore unlawful and clear written instructions would suffice . .
Cited – Regina (Husan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 24-Feb-2005
The applicant sought asylum from Bangladesh. His application was refused, and the respondent issued a certificate to say that his claim was hopeless. He sought judicial review.
Held: There was so much evidence that Bangladesh suffered . .
Cited – Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Brown, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 28-May-2012
The claimant, a citizen of Jamaica, came to the UK in 2010 on a visitor’s visa with leave to remain for one month. He then applied for asylum on the ground that he is a Jamaican homosexual and feared persecution if returned to Jamaica. He was . .
Cited – JB (Jamaica), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Jun-2013
The claimant was to be removed and returned to Jamaica, but claimed that as a homosexual he would be persecuted. He now challenged the inclusion of Jamaica within the last of safe countries.
Held: (Moore-Bick LJ dissenting) The appeal . .
Cited – Brown (Jamaica), Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 4-Mar-2015
B, an homosexual immigrant for Jamaica, resisted his return, saying that he would be prosecuted. The Secretary of State now appealed against a finding that his inclusion of Jamaica within the statutory list of safe countries for return was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Constitutional, Judicial Review
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.147552