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 ( 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. …