Singh and Another v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Publisher | United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) |
| Author | High Court (Queen's Bench Division) |
| Publication Date | 15 February 1993 |
| Citation / Document Symbol | [1993] Imm AR 382 |
| Cite as | Singh and Another v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1993] Imm AR 382, United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales), 15 February 1993, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_HC_QB,3ae6b66014.html [accessed 3 June 2023] |
| 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. |
SINGH and another v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
[1993] Imm AR 382
Hearing Date: 15 February 1993
15 February 1993
Index Terms:
Appeals -- procedure -- pre-hearing review -- advice in notice to appellants that if there were no appearance at the pre-hearing review the adjudicator might then determine the appeal -- whether that was an appropriate procedure. Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 rr 24, 34(2).
Held:
The appellants, citizens of India had applied to the Secretary of State for asylum. The application was refused. They appealed. A notice was sent to them in common form, giving the date and time of a "pre-hearing review". The notice stated that if there were no appearance at that review, the adjudicator might then determine the appeal. There was no appearance before him and the adjudicator determined and dismissed the appeal. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal. Held 1. It was doubtful whether the notice sent to the appellants was a notice of hearing which complied with the procedure rules. 2. If it did, it was still an unacceptable procedure for the substantive appeal to be determined immediately after a pre-hearing review at which there had been no appearance. 3. The appeal would be allowed to the extent that it would be remitted for a hearing on the merits.Counsel:
R Singh for the appellants; T Wilkie for the respondent PANEL: GW Farmer Esq (President), Professor DC Jackson (Vice-President), RE Maddison EsqJudgment One:
THE TRIBUNAL: The appellants, citizens of India, appeal against the decision of an adjudicateor (Mr IMS Donnell) dismissing their appeals against the refusal of leave to remain on the basis of asylum. The application for leave to remain was refused on 17 March 1992, and the explanatory statement was received by the appellate authority on 13 July 1992. On 23 July 1992 the adjudicator's office sent to the appellants copies of the explanatory statement and form ADJ 9. This form reads: *2*"IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 *2*NOTICE OF HEARING Appeal No TH/63588/1992 SINGH, Resham + KAUR, Mohinder Appellant(s) S of S Respondent Take notice that this appeal has been listed for pre-hearing review at 10.00 am, or as soon after this time as the Adjudicator may decide, on Wednesday 7 October 1992 in Hearing Room one at the above address. Copies of relevant documents are enclosed. It is anticipated that this hearing will last 15 minutes. In the absence of an appearance at the hearing and failing a satisfactory explanation of the absence, the Adjudicator may, at his discretion, proceed to determine the appeal on the evidence before him. If you change your address or your representative at any time you must immediately inform the Appellate Authority at the above address as well as the Home Office quoting the TH reference number above." The adjudicator recorded that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the appellants and a submission by the presenting officer. The record of proceedings then show that the appeal was dismissed. The determination was promulgated on 7 October 1992. In that determination the adjudicator stated that notice of the hearing had been served in accordance with the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 and, there being no appearance, discretion would be exercised to hear the appeal in the absence of the appellants. As the Tribunal has said on a number of occasions, it has grave doubts whether form ADJ 9 satisfies the requirements of the procedure rules of a notice of a hearing. Whether or not it technically does so, it is clearly bad administrative practice to list an appeal for a "pre-hearing review" and then indicate that in the absence of an appearance at the hearing, the adjudicator may at his discretion proceed to determine the appeal on the evidence before him. As the Tribunal has said, while a pre-hearing review may in certain cases be desirable, by its very definition, in the opinion of the appellate authority, a step is required before the hearing takes place. If there is a need for a pre-hearing review, the failure of a party to appear at it cannot, of itself, remove that need. At the very least, the form as it was drafted in this case can only cause confusion. In these circumstances the parties are agreed that the preferable course is for the matter to be remitted for a hearing de novo. The Tribunal agrees. The appeals are allowed insofar as the case is remitted for a hearing de novo before an adjudicator other than Mr IMS Donnell.DISPOSITION:
Appeals remitted for hearing de novoCopyright notice: Crown Copyright
