The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several months, during which time her benefits were cancelled.
Held: The result was to leave the appellant in a Kafka-esque world where she was affected by a decision she was not told of, and which she could not challenge. The Act should be read so that the decision was deemed completed not merely when the decision was made, but also when that decision was communicated: ‘Notice of a decision is required before it can have the character of a determination with legal effect because the individual concerned must be in a position to challenge the decision in the courts if he or she wishes to do so. This is not a technical rule, it is simply an application of the right of access to justice.’ Exceptions to the need to general provide notice might be allowed in exceptional cases, perhaps in criminal matters, but otherwise it was necessary.
Lord Steyn pointed out: ‘the Convention is not an exhaustive statement of fundamental rights under our system of law. Lord Hoffmann’s dictum (in Ex p Simms) applies to fundamental rights beyond the four corners of the Convention.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote
[2003] UKHL 36, Times 27-Jun-2003, Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2003] INLR 521, [2003] HRLR 31, [2003] Imm AR 570, [2004] 2 WLR 603, [2004] 1 AC 604, [2004] 1 All ER 833
House of Lords, Bailii
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996, Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1967) 70(3A)(b)(i), European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Anufrijeva v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Mar-2002
Three asylum-seekers brought claims of breach of their Article 8 rights. One complained of a local authority’s failure to provide accommodation to meet special needs, the other two of maladministration and delay in the handling of their asylum . .
Cited – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .
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 . .
Cited – Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz (Judgment) ECJ 25-Jan-1979
A fundamental principle in the Community legal order requires that a measure adopted by the public authorities shall not be applicable to those concerned before they have the opportunity to make themselves acquainted with it. . .
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
At First Instance – Regina (on the Application of Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 25-Oct-2001
. .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Sep-2003
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued . .
Cited – Ali v The Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School CA 29-Mar-2004
The student had been unlawfully excluded from school. The school had not complied with the procedural requirements imposed by the Act.
Held: Though the 1996 Act placed the responsibilty for exclusion upon the local authority, the head and . .
Cited – Andrews v Reading Borough Council QBD 29-Apr-2004
The claimant sought damages for increased road noise resulting from traffic control measures taken by the respondent.
Held: The defendants action to strike out the claim could not succeed. They had not shown that the claim was unarguable, . .
Cited – Van Colle v Hertfordshire Police QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimants claimed for the estate of their murdered son. He had been waiting to give evidence in a criminal trial, and had asked the police for support having received threats. Other witnesses had also suffered intimidation including acts of . .
Cited – Murchison v Southend Magistrates’ Court Admn 24-Jan-2006
The defendant faced an accusation of having slapped a child in the street. The child’s carer had called the police to say that she thought the complaint a practical joke. The defendant did not give evidence. The magistrates retired and came back to . .
Cited – SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jan-2008
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the . .
Cited – HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
Cited – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Jul-2010
The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Benefits, Administrative
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.183878
