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 to concentrate the officials’ minds on the proper ingredients of fair procedure. It allowed two principle remedies for any unfairness. There would be access even if retrospective, to the justice system, and, as in this case relief was given after appropriate judicial intervention. The choice of a fair system was in the first instance the responsibility of the executive, which could properly allow for political and similar imperatives, but it could not choose a method of achieving those aims which sacrificed fairness. Courts would look to the individual interests at issue, the benefits to be derived from added procedural safeguards, and the costs to the administration of compliance. The nature of asylum standards required the highest standards of fairness. Although there remained failings which must be addressed: ‘we do not consider that the system itself is inherently unfair and therefore unlawful. On the contrary, so long as it operates flexibly – as the Home Office accepts it should – the system can operate without an unacceptable risk of unfairness.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Sedley And Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1481, Times 24-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 2219
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (Refugee Legal Centre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 31-Mar-2004
The court declined to hold that the fast-track system of asylum adjudication at Harmondsworth Removal Centre was inherently unfair or therefore unlawful. . .
Cited – Regina 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.’ . .
Cited – Regina (ZL and VL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Chancellor’s Department CA 24-Jan-2003
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fayed CA 13-Nov-1996
The nature of the Secretary of State’s objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated ‘fishing . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali CA 17-May-2001
A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali CA 17-May-2001
A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina (Refugee Legal Centre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 31-Mar-2004
The court declined to hold that the fast-track system of asylum adjudication at Harmondsworth Removal Centre was inherently unfair or therefore unlawful. . .
Applied – 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 – Ali Hussein v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 1-Feb-2013
The claimant sought to challenge the legality of techniques of interrogation intended to be used by forces members detaining person captured in Afghanistan. He had himself been mistreated by such officers in Iraq. The defendant denied he had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Administrative
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219453