[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Begum, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 60 (24 January 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/60.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 60

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
(MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Thursday 24 January 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: This is an application for permission to appeal against a judgment of Stanley Burnton J in the Administrative Court on 15 August 2001. The proceedings have an extremely unhappy history caused by serious delay, responsibility for which I do not intend to go into today. It seems to me that there are two points that deserve the further consideration of the Court of Appeal. In saying that it will be appreciated that that is entirely without prejudice to the view that the court may take when the matter finally comes before it.
2. The first point is that the judge dismissed the claim on grounds of delay, as set out in his judgment. His particular criticism was that the ground that was principally relied on, ground 5, that the applicant is not an illegal entrant, had not been put forward until a considerable period after the proceedings had commenced.
3. The judge sets out the history in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his judgment. However, the judge does not refer to the fact that ground 5 of the grounds for relief resulted from an order made by Burton J on 25 May 2001. Miss Calder, who appeared before him and appears before me today, submits that, because time was not thought to be a central point in the case, the matter may not have been put before him with the force that it merited. At that hearing, Miss Calder applied to amend the grounds in the form that they now take. The Secretary of State was present and represented but decided not to oppose that amendment. In those circumstances it seems to me to be a matter for consideration by the Court of Appeal as to whether it was open to Stanley Burnton J on 15 August last year to dismiss the application on grounds of delay in light of the fact that an amendment to include that ground had been allowed by Burton J some three months previously. In considering that question, it will additionally be open to Miss Begum to address the court of appeal as to whether the judge's further reason for dismissing the claim, that is to say detriment to good administration, was open to him in the light of a history of delay on the part of the respondent which is set out in the papers.
4. Secondly, if, but only if, the Court of Appeal decides that the judge should not have dismissed this claim on grounds of delay, I give leave for the applicant to argue before the Court of Appeal the question of whether, on the evidence before the court, it would be open to the court to conclude that she was an illegal entrant or had been adequately been proved to be such.
5. Those are the only grounds upon which I give permission. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not give permission on ground 4 of the amended grounds dealing with the compassionate position of the applicants and her parents. In my judgement, as was that of Stanley Burnton J, the matter was properly addressed by the Secretary of State in a letter of November 1999, signed personally by a Minister. The judge made no error of law in the observations, albeit brief, that he made about that ground.
6. I also record for the avoidance of doubt that the situation arising from the divorce of the applicant is not relied on in the amended grounds before the judge below. Accordingly, I do not give permission in respect of that either.
7. The case is not at the moment in a satisfactory condition, possibly partly because of the change of emphasis that Miss Calder says arose when they were in front of the judge. I direct therefore that the applicant should within fourteen days file a further skeleton argument to include:

(1) Any further argument relied upon in respect of the implications for the case of the decision of Burton J, setting out with appropriate exhibits a full statement of the matters that were before him when the application was made to him to amend the grounds, including any skeleton argument or affidavit that was used on that occasion.

(2) The basis upon which it is contended that it has not been established that the applicant is an illegal entrant, making reference to relevant documents in the case, including interviews with the applicant on which the Secretary of State relies.

8. I order that this case is suitable for the short-warned list to be heard by a court consisting of two Lords Justices.
9. I indicate, without making any direction, that the appeal should be heard as soon as possible in the light of the delays so far; certainly not later than the end of the Easter term.
10. This judgment will be transcribed and a copy will be made available to the applicant at public expense so that she and those advising her are quite clear as to how the matter is to proceed.
Order: Permission to appeal granted limited as above. Legal Community Services Funding assessment of assisted party. Transcript of judgment to be sent to applicant at public expense.