There is a right of appeal against removal directions under section 65 of the 1999 Act on the ground that removal would be in breach of a person’s human rights. Auld LJ was not impressed by an argument that a restrictive interpretation was necessary to prevent abuse. On the one hand a last-minute challenge would not necessarily be abusive: there might genuinely have been changes of circumstance with the passage of time. And on the other, ‘If and to the extent that such an interpretation is open to abuse by repetitive last-minute claims, it seems to me that Parliament must be taken to have had that possible outcome in mind in including the anti-abuse and one-stop provisions in the 1999 Act . . The fact that those provisions may not provide absolute protection against abuse . . is no basis for a contrary construction, given the importance of the human rights in play.’
Sedley LJ agreed: ‘It is not this court’s job to fill gaps perceived by one party to litigation in Parliament’s provision, especially when the mechanism is not to read the abuse provisions generously but to constrict the antecedent right to which they relate.’
Judges:
Auld, Sedley, Arden LJJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 615, [2003] Imm AR 163, [2003] QB 933, [2002] INLR 383, [2002] 3 WLR 1783
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See also – Regina (on the Application of Kanagasingham Kariharan and Kanagara) v Secretary of State for the Home Office CA 30-Jul-2002
The applicants were subject to removal directions following the failures of their applications for asylum had failed. The decisions were made before the Human Rights Act came into effect, but the direction orders were made afterwards. They sought to . .
Cited – MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.217059