New regulations created a system under which applicants for asylum could be deprived of all benefits on the decision of an asylum support adjudicator. That person was appointed by the Home Secretary, and it was alleged was not impartial. It was argued that the system was dispensing discretionary benefits, and not rights, and that a withdrawal of those benefits was not an interference with rights. Making the benefit discretionary was deliberate, but involved a degree of unreality. The applicant had a right to have his appeal heard by someone independent of the Secretary of State. The tribunals were established by law as required. Whilst it would be preferable fro a different department to be responsible for the appointments, the system retained sufficient impartiality. Courts should lean against accepting judicial review as a substitute for the independence of tribunals. In this case the asylum seeker had had his support withdrawn after an allegation of assault. However under the licence agreement that support was to be withdrawn only in case of misuse of the premises. One such an assault was not capable of being misuse.
Judges:
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Citations:
Times 15-Nov-2001, 2001] EWHC Admin 852, CO/105/2001
Links:
Statutes:
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Asylum Support Regulations 2000
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights, Benefits
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.166548
