G v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interim Decision): CA 9 Mar 2004

A certificate had been granted by the Home Secretary that the applicant was suspected of terrorism, and he had accordingly been detained under special procedures. When his case had come before the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal, they had granted him bail. The HS appealed.
Held: The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction was purely statutory. No statutory jurisdiction had been given to hear such an appeal, and the court therefore could not deal with the case.
Lord Phillips MR said: ‘SIAC is a court of very limited jurisdiction. It is not easy to accept that, if SIAC purports to exercise a jurisdiction that does not exist, Parliament has excluded all possibility of putting the matter right. What if section 24 had provided that ‘a suspected international terrorist who is detained may not be released on bail’? Would there be no remedy if SIAC purported to grant bail?’
Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Pill and Lord Justice Laws
[2004] EWCA Civ 265, Times 15-Mar-2004, Gazette 01-Apr-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1349
Bailii
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 21(1), Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 7
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman HL 11-Oct-2001
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both . .
CitedTaylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
All Public Law Challenges are For a Nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
CitedRegina v Manchester Crown Court and Ashton and Others, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions HL 7-May-1993
A Crown Court decision to stay an indictment for lack of jurisdiction, was not susceptible to Judicial Review. This was a ‘decision affecting conduct of trial’. The House considered the meaning of the phrase ‘other than its jurisdiction in matters . .
CitedIn re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company HL 3-Jul-1980
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over . .

Cited by:
CitedCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 January 2021; Ref: scu.194425