The applicant sought admission to the UK. In the past he had made utterances which were capable of being racist. He claimed to have recanted, and had given undertakings as to his behaviour. At first instance it was held that the Home Secretary had failed to demonstrate an objective reason for refusing admission. It was a ‘reasons challenge’.
Held: The rules of Judicial review did not require the court to hold that if no reasons for a decision were given there were no reasons in fact. The Home Secretary was satisfied that Mr Farrakhan had expressed anti-Semitic and racially divisive views, and that his admission would risk public disorder. Freedom of expression is important, but article 16 created specific exceptions for aliens, and article 10 was only engaged for people already in the country, and did not affect immigration control, unless the refusal was specifically to used to control the expression of views. The Home Secretary had disclosed sufficient reasons to justify the exclusion, and the exclusion was proportionate.
Judges:
Phillips MR, Potter, Arden LJJ
Citations:
Gazette 30-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 606, [2002] 3 WLR 481, [2002] QB 1391
Links:
Statutes:
Immigration Act 1971 1, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 59 60(9), European Convention on Human Rights 10 16
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Poku v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
. .
Cited – Agee v United Kingdom ECHR 1976
(Commission) The Convention does not create any civil right to nationality or to a right of residence. The Secretary of State had made a deportation order against the applicant, who was a United States citizen, on grounds which included that he had . .
Cited – Piermont v France ECHR 27-Apr-1995
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of P4-2; Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – . .
Appeal from – Farrakhan v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 1-Oct-2001
The applicant challenged the Home Secretary’s decision to exclude him from the UK, on the grounds that his presence would exacerbate tensions between the Jewish and Muslim communities. A balance is to be found between freedom of speech and the need . .
Cited by:
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Judicial Review, Human Rights
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171234