The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. The respondent had to consider whether a purpose of the appeal was to delay expulsion, and it was material to ask whether something in a second appeal could have been said earlier. The certificates were valid.
References: [2003] EWCA Civ 1806, Times 09-Jan-2004, [2004] INLR 107
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Parker
Statutes: Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 73
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Regina (Ngamguem) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 8-Jul-2002 ([2002] EWHC Admin 1550)
The applicant a native of Cameroon, had sought asylum. He was refused. His appeal to an adjudicator was dismissed, and directions for his removal were given. Some months later his solicitors submitted what they said was new evidence. They asked for . . - Appeal from – Balamurali, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 9-May-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 1183 (Admin))
. . - Appeal from – Sandhu, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Sep-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 2152 (Admin), Times 26-Sep-03)
The claimant challenged the refusal of a right to appeal against the decision refusing hs asylum appeal. He had failed to attend two hearings. The respondent gave his certificate under section 73 that in his opinion the only purpose of the appeal . . - Cited – Regina (Vemenac) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Jul-2002 ([2002] EWHC 1636 (Admin))
The applicant was a Serb from Croatia whose application for asylum was refused. On appeal to an adjudicator he also raised human rights issues but his appeal was dismissed. He later applied again for leave to remain on the basis of his relationship . . - Cited – Ratnam, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Jan-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 398 (Admin))
. . - Cited – Soylemez, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 15-Apr-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 1056 (Admin))
. . - Cited – Duka v Duka Admn 16-May-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 1262 (Admin))
‘When Parliament uses the expression ‘the appellant had no other legitimate purpose’, it means no more than it says: namely, that there is no good reason, no legitimate reason, for pursuing the claim, and that is because it is a bad claim, and if . . - Cited – Oniboyo CA 1996 ([1996] IAR 370)
The court set out the test of what was a new claim for asylum. . . - Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Senkoy CA 2-Mar-2001 (, [2001] EWCA Civ 328, [2001] IAR 399)
There does not have to be a change in the nature of the persecution to be feared for a new claim to asylum.
Held: ‘When clear and cogent evidence of the same fear of the same persecution for the same Convention reason, let us say of the . . - Cited – Regina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001 (Times 24-May-01, , , [2001] UKHL 25, [2001] 3 All ER 1, [2001] 2 WLR 1586, [2002] 1 AC 45, [2001] UKHRR 825, (2001) 165 JPN 750, [2001] HRLR 48, [2001] Cr App R 21, 11 BHRC 225, (2001) 165 JP 609)
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
This case is cited by:
- Appealed to – Balamurali, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 9-May-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 1183 (Admin))
. . - Appealed to – Sandhu, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Sep-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 2152 (Admin), Times 26-Sep-03)
The claimant challenged the refusal of a right to appeal against the decision refusing hs asylum appeal. He had failed to attend two hearings. The respondent gave his certificate under section 73 that in his opinion the only purpose of the appeal . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.188849 br>