![]() |
[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 >> G v Secretary of State for the Home Department (INTERIM DECISION) [2004] EWCA Civ 265 (09 March 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/265.html Cite as: [2004] WLR 1349, [2004] EWCA Civ 265, [2004] 1 WLR 1349 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2010] PTSR 824] [Buy ICLR report: [2004] 1 WLR 1349] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION
APPEALS COMMISSION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE PILL
and
LORD JUSTICE LAWS
____________________
G |
Applicant/ Proposed Respondent |
|
- and - |
||
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT |
Respondent/Proposed Appellant |
____________________
Wyn Williams QC, Ian Burnett QC & Tim Eicke (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent/Proposed Appellant
Hearing dates : 12 February 2004
____________________
INTERIM DECISION
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Phillips, MR:
These are the reasons for the Interim Decision of the Master of the Rolls and Laws LJ.
Introduction
Issues in relation to SIAC's decision
Issues in relation to our jurisdiction
i) SIAC's decision to admit G to bail was not material to their determination of the appeal because the appeal lay against the decision of the Secretary of State to certify G as a suspected international terrorist, not to detain him.
ii) SIAC's decision to grant bail on 20 January 2004 was not material to their determination of the appeal on 29 October 2003 because it was based upon a change of circumstances after that date, namely a deterioration in G's condition.
iii) SIAC's decision to grant bail does not render nugatory the dismissal of G's appeal to SIAC. That appeal determined that G had been lawfully certified, which remains the case (unless on G's appeal the Court of Appeal determines otherwise).
iv) G's application for bail was a discrete proceeding from the proceedings that challenged G's certification.
"There is in my view, however, also an obvious distinction between jurisdiction conferred by a statute on a court of law of limited jurisdiction to decide a defined question finally and conclusively or unappealable, and a similar jurisdiction conferred on the High Court or a judge of the High Court acting in his judicial capacity. The High Court is not a court of limited jurisdiction and its constitutional role includes the interpretation of written laws. There is thus no room for the inference that Parliament did not intend the High Court or the judge of the High Court acting in his judicial capacity to be entitled and, indeed, required to construe the words of the statute by which the question submitted to his decision was defined. There is simply no room for error going to his jurisdiction, nor, as is conceded by counsel for the respondent, is there any room for judicial review. Judicial review is available as a remedy for mistakes of law made by inferior courts and tribunals only. Mistakes of law made by judges of the High Court acting in their capacity as such can be corrected only by means of appeal to an appellate court; and if, as in the instant case, the statute provides that the judge's decision shall not be appealable, they cannot be corrected at all."
Lord Justice Pill:
Section 7(1) of SIACA provides:
"Where the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has made a final determination of an appeal, any party to the appeal may bring a further appeal to the appropriate appeal court on any question of law material to that determination."
By virtue of section 7(3), the appropriate appeal court is the Court of Appeal.