Regina 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 Court of Human Rights in such matters. Where the Home Secretary reviewed the decision before it got to the High Court, that court must look at the latest decision, but in the Court of Appeal, the facts had to be examined as at the date of the High Court decision. Despite the wealth of material to show that grave human rights abuses still occur in Turkey, the court was unable to hold that the Secretary of State was bound to find the risk of this particular applicant being ill-treated to be a real one. Clearly there exists a conflict of opinion as to the degree of risk faced generally by returnees to Turkey, but the decision was not irrational.
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Schiemann And Lord Justice Thorpe
Times 15-Feb-2000, Gazette 17-Feb-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 22, [2001] 1 All ER 719, [2000] Imm LR 306
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Resumed 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 . .
CitedChahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
CitedSoering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
CitedCruz Varas And Others v Sweden ECHR 20-Mar-1991
Hudoc No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 25-1 ‘Although the present case concerns expulsion as opposed to a decision to extradite, the Court considers that the above [Soering] . .
CitedChahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
CitedSelmouni v France ECHR 28-Jul-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – . .
CitedRegina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others QBD 7-Jun-1995
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
CitedVilvarajah and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Oct-1991
Five Tamils were refused asylum in the UK and returned to Sri Lanka but then continued to suffer ill-treatment. Their complaints to Strasbourg were rejected under both Articles 3 and 13, but with regard to Article 3, it held: ‘108. The court’s . .
CitedRegina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others QBD 7-Jun-1995
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive . .
CitedSmith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
Appeal fromRegina 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 . .

Cited by:
Adjourned toRegina 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 . .
CitedE v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 January 2021; Ref: scu.147055