RQ (Jordan)), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- PHILIP MOTT QC
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimant, a Jordanian national of Palestinian descent, overstayed his UK visitor visa, was arrested for theft, and subsequently claimed asylum, which was refused. His appeals against the refusal were dismissed, leading him to seek judicial review. The judicial review was granted, quashing the Upper Tribunal's decision denying permission to appeal based on the First Tier Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment for the claimant to obtain evidence about his nationality. The case underscored the principles of fair trial and the importance of credibility assessment in asylum claims, particularly emphasizing the need for high standards of fairness in such proceedings.
Judgment
Philip Mott QC :
The Claimant, at that time a Jordanian national of Palestinian descent, came to the UK in November 2009 as a visitor at the age of 23. He stayed on after his visa expired until he was arrested by police on 10 August 2012 for theft. He then claimed asylum. That was refused by the First Defendant on 24 August 2012. The Claimant appealed, but his appeal was dismissed by Judge Turquet in the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) on 7 September 2012. Permission to appeal was refused by Judge Coker in the FTT on 12 September 2012, and by Judge Gill in the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) on 21 September 2012.
This judicial review application was issued on 4 October 2012. Permission was initially refused on paper, but granted on an oral renewal by Ingrid Simler QC (as she then was) on 21 January 2013.
The single ground put forward in the hearing before me was that the FTT was in error for not granting an adjournment, and the UT was wrong not to grant permission to appeal. The remedy sought was an order setting aside the UT’s decision, and a declaration that permission to appeal should be granted. It would then be for the UT to decide at a full hearing whether the appeal should succeed.
This is a case which was covered by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2012] 1 AC 663 . This limits the granting of permission to cases in which the proposed appeal would raise some important point of principle or practice, or there is some other compelling reason for the grant of permission. However, it is clear from the Court of Appeal decision in R (AA (Iran)) v Upper Tribunal [2013] EWCA Civ 1523 that this second appeals test no longer applies once permission has been granted.
The short basis for the Claimant’s asylum claim was that in about 2005 he had unwittingly got mixed up with Hamas. As a result he fears for his life in Jordan, and could not safely go to Palestine either. In any event, he claimed, he could not return to Jordan as he had renounced his Jordanian nationality.
In her decision letter of 24 August 2012 the First Defendant did not accept that he had voluntarily renounced his Jordanian nationality. In relation to credibility, the letter stated that the evidence he had given had been compared “both cumulatively and together with objective information about your claim and country” (paragraph 43). In other words, the adverse findings as to credibility were based not only on his asylum claim directly, but also