The claimants had applied for asylum, being Tamils from Sri Lanka. The applications had been rejected, and they sought to challenge the decisions to return them as a breach of their human rights. The new Act and transitional provisions created a new right of appeal, but the applicants fell outside the policy which added certain other categories. The Home Secretary said that the issues which might be raised by such an appeal were identical with those which had already been considered. The claimants asserted that different issues did arise, and that a legitimate expectation had been created.
Held: The section creating the right of appeal was intended to refer to decisions ‘in relation to that person’s entitlement to enter or remain’, and not to decisions to remove. The restriction of the policy to decisions after a certain date was neither unlawful nor irrational. No legitimate expectation had been created and broken. The cases was rejected save as to the suggestion that differing issues arose.
Justice Stanley Burnton
[2001] EWHC Admin 1004
Bailii
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65, Human Rights Act 1998 6(1), Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No. 6, Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2000 (2000 No. 2444)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – St Brice and Another v Southwark London Borough Council CA 17-Jul-2001
The council having obtained a possession order, suspended on terms, through court proceedings, later sought to enforce the order by a warrant for possession issued without first giving notice to the tenant. The tenant alleged that the grant of the . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Newham and Manik Bibi and Ataya Al-Nashed CA 26-Apr-2001
CS The housing authority had mistakenly thought that it was obliged to re-house the applicants under the Act with secure accommodation, and promised them accordingly.
Held: That promise had created a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.167282
