The applicants’ claims for asylum had been rejected as bound to fail, and under the new Act, they were to be removed from the UK. If they wanted to appeal, they they would have to do so from outside the jurisdiction. The section had been brought into effect before the Act had been formally published.
Held: An Act took effect on Royal assent irrespective of publication, but that rule was not echoed in Human Rights law. Could the respondent give effect to the section before publication? Here the applicant retained a right to apply for judicial review to argue that the absence of publication had caused prejudice. The courts were themselves well placed to judge the issues. The courts should look carefully at the individual circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that certain countries were listed as safe. The fast track procedure was capable of protecting the rights of applicants.
‘If on at least one legitimate view of the facts or the law the claim may succeed, the claim will not be clearly unfounded’- The test of whether a claim is ‘clearly unfounded’ is a black and white test. The result cannot, for instance, depend upon whether the burden of proof is on the claimant or the Secretary of State, albeit that section 94 makes express provision in relation to the burden of proof.
Judges:
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Phillips MR
Citations:
[2003] 1 WLR 1230, Times 30-Jan-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 25, Gazette 20-Mar-2003, [2003] 1 All ER 1062, [2003] Imm AR 330, [2003] INLR 224
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality and Asylum Act 2002 115, European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof Aschaffenburg AG HL 5-Mar-1975
Statute’s Mischief May be Inspected
The House considered limitations upon them in reading statements made in the Houses of Parliament when construing a statute.
Held: It is rare that a statute can be properly interpreted without knowing the legislative object. The courts may . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bagdanavicius, Bagdanaviciene v the Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Apr-2003
The applicants sought asylum, saying they had been subjected to repeated ill-treatment by Lithuanian Mafiosi. The claims were rejected as clearly unfounded, denying any right to an appeal.
Held: The court could examine the basis upon which the . .
Cited – The Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Nov-2004
The applicant alleged that the fast track system of selecting and dealing with unmeritorious asylum claims was unfair and unlawful.
Held: The system was not inherently unfair and therefore unlawful and clear written instructions would suffice . .
Cited – Yogachandran, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Feb-2006
The applicant appealed rejection of his claim for asylum.
Held: ‘the claimant has wholly failed to demonstrate, even to the very low level of possibility which suffices to quash a certificate, that there is any risk to him if he is returned to . .
Cited – ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 4-Feb-2009
The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. . .
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Constitutional, Human Rights
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178797