R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Yildiz and Another
| Publisher | United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) |
| Author | High Court (Queen's Bench Division) |
| Publication Date | 19 February 1991 |
| Citation / Document Symbol | [1991] Imm AR 354 |
| Cite as | R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Yildiz and Another, [1991] Imm AR 354, United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales), 19 February 1991, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_HC_QB,3ae6b65fc.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. |
R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT ex parte YILDIZ AND ANOTHER
Queen's Bench Division
[1991] Imm AR 354
Hearing Date: 19 February 1991
19 February 1991
Index Terms:
Political asylum -- citizens of Turkey -- arrived in United Kingdom from Spain -- whether Secretary of State's decision not to consider their applications on the merits unreasonable -- whether reasonable to return the applicants to Spain -- whether Secretary of State could reasonably rely on assurances of Spanish authorities that the applicants' cases would be properly considered -- whether an alleged inconsistency in Secretary of State's approach to Turkish asylum seekers coming from Spain was a ground on which judicial review could be pursued.
Held:
The applicants for leave to move for judicial review were citizens of Turkey who arrived in the United Kingdom from Spain, where they had spent two days. On arrival in the United Kingdom they claimed political asylum. In accordance with his publicly announced policy the Secretary of State declined to consider their applications on the merits and arranged for their return to Spain, the first safe country they had reached. It was argued by counsel that the Secretary of State had erred in relying on the assurances of the Spanish authorities that the applicants' cases would be properly considered, another Turkish citizen, it was alleged, having been returned to Turkey without his case having been reviewed in Spain. Counsel also contended that the Secretary of State's approach to the present applications was inconsistent with his treatment of other Turkish citizens who had arrived via Spain. Held: 1. The Secretary of State, in the events which had happened, was entitled to rely on the assurances he had received from the Spanish authorities, that the applicants' cases would be properly considered. 2. It was not possible to base an application for judicial review on the assertion that the Secretary of State had been inconsistent in his approach, for that depended on a review of other cases, not before the court and in which the facts could well have been different.Cases referred to in the Judgment:
No cases are referred to in the judgmentCounsel:
Miss I Rahal for the applicants; Miss A Foster for the respondent PANEL: Auld JJudgment One:
AULD J: This is an application by Hasan and Sabryie Yildiz for judicial review of a decision of an immigration officer to remove them to Spain without giving them the opportunity of making an application for judicial review and -- whilst it is not expressed in this way in the application -- without considering hearing an application for asylum. The normal rule expressed by the Secretary of State in his Policy Statement of 25 July 1990, in accordance with the United Kingdom's obligation under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees, is that no refugee will be removed by the United Kingdom to a territory in which his life or freedom will be threatened on various bases. However, the Secretary of State adopts the policy that refugees should normally seek refuge in the first safe country reached. These applicants come from Turkey, and they seek asylum here, or would do, from persecution in that country. They reached this country via Spain, having spent some two nights and one day in Spain. The Secretary of State's view is that they should be returned to Spain to pursue there, if they wish, their application for political asylum, in accordance with his policy that refuge should be sought in the first safe country reached. The way in which the Secretary of State applies this policy is to return the applicants for asylum unless he takes the view that the country to which he is returning them is the country from which they are seeking refuge, or unless he is satisfied that to return to some other country through which the applicants have passed would result in their being returned to the country from which they seek refuge without an application for political asylum being properly considered. It is said in this case on behalf of the applicants that the Secretary of State could not properly be satisfied that, if these applicants are returned to Spain, an application made by them there for political asylum would be properly considered. That argument is based upon evidence about another applicant, similarly a Turkish refugee, who passed through Spain and who in the last week or so was returned to Spain. It is said that, although he sought political asylum there, the application was not considered and he was returned without delay to Turkey. It appears from evidence put before me from one of the applicants that in that instance the applicant was unable to convey to the authorities in Spain what he wanted because he did not speak Spanish. They did not speak Turkish and no qualified interpreter was provided. In the circumstances, not being able to communicate with them, he was returned to Turkey without his wish to make an application for asylum being dealt with. The Secretary of State has obtained evidence which has been put before me in the form of an affidavit from Roland Phillips. That exhibits to it a fax message from the British Consulate-General in Madrid, which refers to that incident and sets out the Spanish authorities' understanding of what happened. It is that no application was made for asylum and that it was in those circumstances he boarded a Turkish Airways flight back to Istanbul. The message continues that the authorities in Spain say that, if he had applied for asylum, expulsion would have been stayed pending consideration of his case. That appears to be information confirming what the Secretary of State already understood, namely that the Spanish authorities would comply with their obligation if an application for political asylum were made to them. In my judgment, the Secretary of State is entitled to rely upon that information and understanding, and is entitled to say that in the circumstances he is not satisfied that these applicants would be returned to Turkey without their application being properly dealt with in Spain. The fact that there was a misunderstanding in another instance, in my view, in no way unseats the Secretary of State's approach to the matter. The second way in which the application is put is that it shows an inconsistency on the part of the Secretary of State in his treatment of cases. There have been other Turkish refugees passing through Spain to this country with, it is said, less substantial links here than those of the applicants in this case. The fact that an applicant for asylum has substantial links with this country is one of the exceptional factors which should cause the Secretary of State to consider whether it would be right to return the applicants to an intermediate country. In my view, it is impossible to base an application of this sort on a comparison with other cases where the factual circumstances may correspond in some respects and differ in others. As Miss Foster has indicated, each application has to be considered on its own facts and merits. The essential question is whether the Secretary of State has applied his policy in a proper way to the factual decision that he has to make. There is, in my judgment, no ground for suggesting that he has not done so. The application for leave is refused.DISPOSITION:
Application refusedSOLICITORS:
Seifert Sedley Williams; Treasury SolicitorCopyright notice: Crown Copyright
