Mohammadi, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- Professor CHRISTOPHER FORSYTH
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court reviewed a failed asylum seeker's case challenging the Secretary of State's decision of not considering his new asylum claim as a 'Fresh Claim' under para 353 of the Immigration Rules. The claimant's earlier asylum claim was denied, and his new submissions, which included translated documents, were also rejected by the Secretary of State for not being significantly different and lacking a realistic prospect of success. The court found no procedural impropriety or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Secretary of State's decision, thus dismissing the application for judicial review.
Judgment
Prof. Christopher Forsyth :
This is an application in which the Claimant, a failed asylum seeker, seeks judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal of a “Fresh Claim” for asylum. Such claims are governed by para 353 of the Immigration Rules which is designed to ensure that failed applicants cannot apply for asylum over and over again without putting forward new material that is significantly different from that already considered. Para 353, the application of which will form the heart of this judgment, is in these terms (omitting currently irrelevant words):
“When a human rights or asylum claim has been refused or withdrawn… and any appeal relating to that claim is no longer pending, the decision maker will consider any further submissions and, if rejected, will then determine whether they amount to a fresh claim. The submissions will amount to a fresh claim if they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered. The submissions will only be significantly different if the content: (i) has not already been considered; and (ii) taken together with the previously considered material, created a realistic prospect of success, notwithstanding its rejection….”
Preliminary Procedural Issue
Before turning to the application of para 353 there is a preliminary procedural point to consider. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the 2 nd May 2013 by HHJ Thornton QC. Under CPR 54.14 the Defendant had thirty five days from the grant of permission (i.e. until the 7 th June 2013) to file her detailed grounds (and written evidence) for contesting the claim. And in granting permission HHJ Thornton QC had so ordered. None the less, the Secretary of State only filed her Detailed Grounds of Defence on the 29 th March 2014, about nine months late.
In these circumstances Mr Ball, for the Claimant, submitted that I should exercise my powers under CPR 3.4 (2)(c) that arise on non-compliance with a court’s order and strike out the Defendant’s Detailed Grounds of Defence. Mr Ball submitted that this would be in accordance with the “new robust approach” of Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 of not generally “granting relief to defaulting parties from the consequences of their defaults” (Lord Dyson MR, para 34). This “robust approach” was adopted in reaction to the fact that “courts at all levels have become too tolerant of delays and non-compliance with orders. In doing so, they have