R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Guiled

Publisher	United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales)
Author	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
Publication Date	18 November 1992
Citation / Document Symbol	[1993] Imm AR 236
Cite as	R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Guiled, [1993] Imm AR 236, United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales), 18 November 1992, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_HC_QB,3ae6b66440.html [accessed 4 November 2019]
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT ex parte GUILED

Queen's Bench Division

[1993] Imm AR 236

Hearing Date: 18 November 1992

18 November 1992

Index Terms:

Political asylum -- alleged failure by Secretary of State to deal promptly with application for asylum by Somali and with request for visas for dependants -- whether on the facts the complaints were justified -- court's approach to costs. HC 251 para 140.

Held:

Application for leave to move for judicial review of the alleged failure by the Secretary of State to deal promptly with an application for political asylum by a Somali, and the related application for visas for the applicant's dependants. The material facts are set out in the judgment.

Held

1. There had been no unreasonable delay and the evidence before the court showed that the grounds for the application were misleading.

2. The application was misconceived and would be dismissed.

3. The question of costs would be referred to the appropriate authorities who would take account of any explanations put to them on the preparation of the application.

Counsel:

R de Mello for the applicant; Miss A Foster for the respondent

PANEL: Potts J

Judgment One:

POTTS J: This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the omission/failure by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to deal effectively, promptly and without delay with the applicant's application for political asylum under the terms of the Convention, and/or failing to make a decision with regard to the applicant's application for refugee status and for her dependants to be issued with a visa within reasonable period, such delay continuing.

I have been referred to a letter written to the Secretary of State on behalf of the applicant dated 29 September 1992. This concludes:

"We appreciate that our client's application for political asylum was made comparatively recently, ie 1st April 1992 but given the circumstances in our representations it should we submit, be considered as an emergency."

There is also a letter dated 19 October 1992 written by those acting for the applicant to the Secretary of State. This concludes:

"Our client has been granted a legal aid certificate to make an application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's delay in considering the asylum application, and counsel has settled grounds for the application. Proceedings will be issued once the papers have been prepared. We hope, however, these proceedings will be obviated by the grant of visas to the children."

Complaint is made on behalf of the applicant that there was no reply to that letter.

The letter raises the question of the applicant's children who are presently outside the jurisdiction, and so:

"We request that you deal with the children's visa application outside the rules and that you authorise the grant of visas to the children, notwithstanding the fact that our client's asylum application has not been determined . . .".

This morning Miss Foster, who appears on behalf of the Secretary of State, informed me that the picture that emerges from the applicant's grounds is misleading. In particular she submits that it is wrong to say that those acting for the applicant and the Secretary of State have been out of contact in recent weeks. On the contrary, Miss Foster told me, regular contact by telephone has been maintained.

This afternoon Miss Foster submitted in draft an unsworn affidavit prepared by Jill Douglas of the Asylum Division of the Home Office. In due course I will ask Miss Foster to undertake to have this draft sworn forthwith.

The draft affidavit indicates that Miss Douglas herself has spoken to the solicitors acting for the applicant on numerous occasions in the past few months in connection with the applicant's children and their position. I quote:

"Conversations with the applicant's solicitors and my office took place on the 26th August, 7th September, 6th October, 21st and 22 October, the 26th October, 9th November and 17th November. I believe there were a couple of other telephone calls the dates of which were not recorded in my notes on this case."

The draft affidavit goes on:

"When I spoke to Wilson & Co, on the 26th August I explained to them that this application did not fall within the concession operated for the benefit of Somalis held in refugee camps. Nonetheless I indicated that as an exception to this concession the Home Office would consider the childrens' application in any event in the light of any compassionate circumstances if they were referred to us. It was also indicated to Wilson & Co in the course of the telephone conservations that this would be done as soon as possible, that is to say, as soon as the relevant papers arrived from the British High Commission in Bombay.

"The solicitors were also informed that Bombay were going to send the relevant documents on the 27th October. The documents have not yet arrived and the solicitors have been informed of this. Further, telex messages have been sent to Bombay querying the non-arrival of the documents.

"Accordingly, Wilson & Co were aware from the 26th August that the children's application would be considered irrespective of the status of their mother who was being considered for asylum. They also knew this would be done as soon as possible."

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dated 23 October 1992. It will be clear from the foregoing that any assertion that the Home Office have been dragging their heels in this matter is wholly misconceived. The letter to which I first referred, 29 September 1992, shows that the applicant's solicitors accept that the application for political asylum was made comparatively recently. The draft affidavit to which I have referred shows that the Secretary of State has taken all possible steps to ensure that the applicant has her children in this country pending the determination of her application for asylum.

Against this background I have reached the conclusion that the application is misconceived. I reject Mr de Mello's suggestion that the matter should be adjourned for seven days. The application is dismissed.

Mr de Mello, it seems to me, as to costs, the Secretary of State being here on an ex parte application, the sensible thing to do, since I apprehend you are legally aided, is to direct that the affidavit of Miss Douglas goes to the taxing master, or the legal aid authority, whoever it is who is concerned about the matter, so that the relevant authority has it when it comes to taxing the bills of costs of those instructing you. I propose to take that course, because it seems to me, on the face of it at all events, the preparation of this case by those instructing you has fallen well below appropriate standards. I say on the face of it: I have not heard any explanation.

DISPOSITION:

Application dismissed

SOLICITORS:

Wilson & Co, London N17; Treasury Solicitor