BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [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 >> NS (Rwanda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1759 (28 November 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1759.html
Cite as: [2006] EWCA Civ 1759

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

Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWCA Civ 1759
C5/2006/2044

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No.HX/07792/2004]

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
28th November 2006

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE WALL
LORD JUSTICE HOOPER
____________________

NS (Rwanda) CLAIMANT/APPELLANT
- v -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

____________________

(DAR Transcript of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR D BAZINI (instructed by Messrs Clore & Co) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

  1. LORD JUSTICE WALL: My Lord, Lord Justice Hooper, and I have read the papers and I think we are minded to give you permission. We think that the best and most arguable point is the article 8 point, but I do not think we are minded to shut you out on the others, although we think they are less persuasive and no doubt that is the message that can be carried back. We are not going to formally restrict permission to appeal, but as we say, that is the point that strikes us as being the most arguable.

  2. We tentatively take the view that this will take about two hours to argue. That, of course, excludes judgment. We think it should be a three-judge court. One of the judges of the three could be a High Court judge, as that facilitates the making of the constitution.

    3. Order: Application granted.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1759.html