The applicant had arrived in England to apply for asylum but had then been moved to Scotland. A decision of the adjudication officer in Scotland had been heard by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal sitting in London. The claimant sought a High Court review of that decision in London.
Held: The review could only be conducted by the Court of Session. The considerations were not those of a private action as to forum conveniens, but had constitutional implications. Though some residual jurisdiction lay in London, this was not an exceptional case and was to be heard in Scotland. Parliament had made clear that the courts of Scotland should have ultimate responsibility in relation to appeals to the IAT from adjudicators in Scotland. Without deciding the point Brooke LJ noted that in a ‘real emergency’ the High Court might exercise jurisdiction over IAT decisions relating to appeals from adjudicators in Scotland but that would have to be a ‘very exceptional case’.
Judges:
Brooke, Hale, Wilson LJJ
Citations:
Times 24-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 615, Gazette 12-Jun-2003
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Shah) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Secretary of State for the Home Department, interested party CA 22-Nov-2004
The applicant had fled Pakistan to claim asylum. His application for judicial review of the decision to reject his request for asylum failed. It had been decided in Scotland. He appealed.
Held: It was not open to the Secretary of State to . .
Cited – Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Jurisdiction, Immigration, Constitutional
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.181842
