Before the adjudicator, the respondent had conceded that the asylum applicant had good reason to fear persecution if returned to her home country. He sought to withdraw that concession at the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Held: It was not for the Court of Appeal to hear an argument about the withdrawal of the concession. The whole content of the adjudicator’s decision was on the basis of the concession. The applicant would be prejudiced if the concession was withdrawn without her having opportunity to argue it. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal should first hear argument on the point and decide, not the Court of Appeal.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘It is clear from the authorities that where a concession has been made before an adjudicator by either party the Tribunal can allow the concession to be withdrawn if it considers that there is good reason in all the circumstances to take that course . . Obviously if there will be prejudice to one of the parties if the withdrawal is allowed that will be relevant and matters such as the nature of the concession and the timing may also be relevant, but it is not essential to demonstrate prejudice before an application to withdraw a concession can be refused. What the Tribunal must do is to try to obtain a fair and just result. In the absence of prejudice, if a presenting officer has made a concession which appears in retrospect to be a concession which he should not have made, then justice will require that the Secretary of State be allowed to withdraw that concession before the Tribunal. But, as I have said, everything depends on the circumstances, and each case must be considered on its own merits.’
Judges:
Kennedy, Clarke, Jacob LJJ
Citations:
Times 05-Feb-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 106, Gazette 11-Mar-2004
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (Ivanauskiene) v A Special Adjudicator CA 31-Jul-2001
The applicant had sought asylum. Her case had been refused, according to the law as stated at that time, but the decision then binding on the adjudicator (Shah), had been reversed in the House of Lords. It had now been held that the women of a . .
Cited by:
Cited – NR (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Aug-2009
The appellant had been convicted of supplying drugs, and ordered to be returned to Jamaica after her sentence. She had resisted saying that, as a lesbian, she would be persecuted if returned. The respondent conceded that the IAT had made an error of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193377
