Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same, Ex Parte Gawe: HL 15 Feb 1996

Two Somali nationals were refused asylum and sought to challenge a decision rejecting their claim that to be sent to Spain would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1951.
Held: Adjudicators are experts in their field and are provided with a great deal of background information in relation to countries from which refugees might be expected to arrive. The Home Secretary need not disclose all the information on which he based his decision to issue a certificate as to the safety of a third country for return of an asylum seeker.


Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick


Times 17-Feb-1996, Gazette 06-Mar-1996, Independent 21-Feb-1996, [1996] 1 All ER 641, [1996] UKHL 9, [1996] Imm AR 46, [1996] 1 WLR 298




Geneva Convention 1951, Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 8


CitedLiversidge v Sir John Anderson HL 3-Nov-1941
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents.
Held: The . .
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 Mehari QBD 1994
A Special Adjudicator is not limited to checking whether the Secretary of State has some material on which he might give such a certificate. He must make an independent judgment and consider de novo whether he is satisfied that the country was a . .
CitedRegina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Thavathevathasan CA 1994
The court discussed the task of a Special Adjudicator: ‘Clearly the Special Adjudicator is not bound by the Home Secretary’s certificate. In other words, he does not merely wield a rubber stamp. He must consider whether, on the material before the . .
CitedRegina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Thirukumar CA 1989
The court emphasised the fundamental importance of asylum decisions: ‘asylum decisions are of such moment that only the highest standards of fairness will suffice.’ . .
CitedRegina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran HL 16-Dec-1987
The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the . .
CitedDursun v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1993
The Home Secretary is able to collect information about the policies of other countries from many sources. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Musisi HL 1987
Mr Musisi sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor from Kenya. When that application looked as though it might fail, he claimed political asylum as a refugee from Uganda. His application for asylum was refused on the basis that he had come . .
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi and Another CA 21-Apr-1994
The Home Secretary has no duty to show the factual evidence he had relied upon as to the safety of a deportee’s destination country.
The Home Secretary need not state all information on which his certificate was based. The court recognised the . .

Cited by:

CitedMarghia (Procedural Fairness) UTIAC 25-Jul-2014
AIT The common law duty of fairness is essentially about procedural fairness. There is no absolute duty at common law to make decisions which are substantively ‘fair’. The Court will not interfere with decisions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87822