Tuesday Law Report: Court Could Decline to Entertain Judicial Review Application ; 11 January 2005 Regina (on the Application of M) V Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another; Regina (on the Application of G) V Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ([2004] EWCA Civ 1731) Court of Appeal, Civil Division (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Scott Baker) 16 December 2004

By Kate O'Hanlon, Barrister | The Independent (London, England), January 11, 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Tuesday Law Report: Court Could Decline to Entertain Judicial Review Application ; 11 January 2005 Regina (on the Application of M) V Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another; Regina (on the Application of G) V Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ([2004] EWCA Civ 1731) Court of Appeal, Civil Division (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Scott Baker) 16 December 2004


Kate O'Hanlon, Barrister, The Independent (London, England)


ADEQUATE AND proportionate protection of an asylum seeker's rights was provided by the statutory regime in section 101 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which included statutory review of a refusal of permission to appeal. It was, accordingly, a proper exercise of the court's discretion to decline to entertain an application for judicial review of issues which had been, or could have been, the subject of statutory review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants' appeals against the refusal of their applications for permission to seek judicial review.

M came from Zimbabwe, and G came from Iran. Each had his application for asylum refused by the Secretary of State, and his appeal to an adjudicator dismissed. Each applied to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) for permission to appeal. Each was refused permission by IAT. Each appealed against the refusal of his application to seek judicial review of IAT's refusal of permission.

Both appeals raised the question whether the Administrative Court should exercise its powers of judicial review in circumstances where Parliament had provided an alternative remedy, but one that did not involve a right to an oral hearing.

The context was the regime currently in force under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 for those who wished to appeal against immigration decisions. Section 101 provided that, where permission to appeal against a decision of an adjudicator was refused by IAT, a claimant might seek a review of IAT's decision on the ground that it had made an error of law. That review would be determined by a single judge of the High Court by reference only to written submissions, and his decision would be final.

Michael Fordham (Refugee Legal Centre) for M; Raza Husain (TRP Solicitors) for G; Elisabeth Laing (Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Tuesday Law Report: Court Could Decline to Entertain Judicial Review Application ; 11 January 2005 Regina (on the Application of M) V Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another; Regina (on the Application of G) V Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ([2004] EWCA Civ 1731) Court of Appeal, Civil Division (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Scott Baker) 16 December 2004
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?