Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 479 (Nov)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWHC 2569 (Admin)
Court: Administrative Court
Judge:

Crane J

Representation Andrew Nicol QC and Galina Ward (instructed by Stephens & Scown, Exeter) for the claimant.
  Ashley Underwood QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 21 November 2002

Catchwords

Immigration - Asylum - Certification of claim as manifestly unfounded - Human rights claim - Claimant removed to third country in breach of undertaking - Relevance of Secretary of State's view of merits - Lawfulness of decision to certify claim - Return of claimant to United Kingdom - s 72(2)(a).

The Case

Since certification of a human rights claim by an asylum-seeker under s72(2)(a) of the was a screening process, resulting in the loss of a right to appeal in the United Kingdom, and should be subject to the most anxious scrutiny by the courts, it was vitally important that that the Secretary of State should, for certification purposes, consider not merely the merits of the claimant's claim, but whether the claim was bound to fail before the Adjudicator. Furthermore, given that the Secretary of State's decision to certify the claimant's claims that to remove him as an asylum-seeker would violate his human rights was unlawful and that he had thereby been denied a right of appeal in the UK, the case for a mandatory order to return the claimant to this country was made out.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.