Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Abdullah Turgut: Admn 22 May 1998

The appellant sought exceptional leave to remain, having been refused asylum.
Held: The issue concerned a Turkish citizen seeking asylum because he feared persecution if he was returned to Turkey, in being a Kurdish draft evader likely to be imprisoned and so subject to torture. ‘The authorities and Courts will view such claims with great care; but the machinery by which that is normally done in the first instance is through appeal to the Special Adjudicator. That has been done, that decision was unavailabl;e but the Secretary of State said in his recent letter that the Special Adjudicator found that the draft evasion would not result in him being subject to degrading and inhuman treatment. Now, he has then sought to raise the matter again with the Secretary of State under his undoubted power to grant exceptional leave to remain, and he has submitted a letter from an expert, Mr McDowell, on the likely treatment in Turkish prisons; but the Secretary of State has considered that in a series of letters, and he has given his grounds for not believing that then will be a breach of this applicant’s rights. There are no grounds specifically directed to those reasons. In any event, it seems it was impossible to say that the Secretary of State’s decision is unlawful or manifestly in breach of the Convention or offends any other judicial review principle.’ Leave refused.


Carnwath J


[1998] EWHC Admin 592

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 27-Oct-1998
The claimant appealed refusal of special leave to remain here after refusal of his application for asylum.
Held: In view of the new material before the court it was not unarguable that the Secretary of State had not properly considered the . .
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.138713