The appellants sought judicial review of the refusal of asylum. They sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, but that had been refused. They then sought a statutory review by a judge of the Administrative division. That review also was refused. They complained that they had not been given an opportunity to make an oral application at this last hearing.
Held: The Statutory review procedure was designed as a back-stop for any refusal to hear an appeal by the IAT. The restriction on oral hearings only operated at one level, and oral hearings were available at others. The regime provided adequate and proportionate protection. The appeals failed: ‘It seems to us that the key finding made by Collins J was that, in the light of the two-tier tribunal system, statutory review was a satisfactory judicial process for the question that it was designed to address. This is the critical issue. Does the procedure as a whole carry a satisfactory assurance that the rights of those entitled to asylum will be upheld?’
Lord Phillips MR said: ‘The consideration of proportionality involves more than comparing the remedy with what is at stake in the litigation. When Parliament enacts a remedy with the clear intention that this should be pursued in place of judicial review, it is appropriate to have regard to the considerations giving rise to that intention. The satisfactory operation of the separation of powers requires that Parliament should leave the judges free to perform their role of maintaining the rule of law but also that, in performing that role, the judges should, so far as consistent with the rule of law, have regard to legislative policy.’
Judges:
Lord Phillips MR, Sedley Baker, Scott Baker LJJ
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1731, Times 23-Dec-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1445
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina (on the Application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court Admn 13-Dec-2001
The applicant sought to appeal against a refusal of leave to appeal against an arbitration. There had been some delay for the applicant’s health.
Held: Leave to appeal having been refused there was no further right of appeal under the 1999 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
Cited – AM (Cameroon), Regina (on the Application of) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal CA 21-Feb-2007
The asylum applicant sought judicial review of interlocutory decisions of an immigration judge. The defendant said that there was a statutory procedure and that therefore that had to be followed rather than judicial review.
Held: The . .
Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Judicial Review
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220717
