AM (Cameroon), R (on the application of) v Asylum & Immigration Tribunal & Anor

AM (Cameroon), R (on the application of) v Asylum & Immigration Tribunal & Anor

The court held that the failure to list AM's judicial review application for oral hearing before the section 103A decision was a serious procedural error by the court, not attributable to AM or her advisers. This error, combined with the conduct of the immigration judge in refusing to reconsider the evidence application, refusing an adjournment for medical reasons, and proceeding in AM's absence, resulted in a breach of natural justice and denial of a fair hearing. The case fell within the exceptional category where judicial review was appropriate despite the statutory finality of section 103A. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the section 103A decision and the...

Parties
Claimant: AM (Cameroon); Defendant: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal; Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Application allowed; decisions set aside
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Asylum Appeals, Adjournment Applications
Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Asylum Appeals Adjournment Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AM (Cameroon)

Claimant

Asylum and Immigration Tribunal

Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to allow evidence by telephonic link and refusal to adjourn for medical reasons amounted to a breach of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the finality of a section 103A decision precluded judicial review in exceptional circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to set aside a final decision due to procedural error by the court

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the failure to list AM's judicial review application for oral hearing before the section 103A decision was a serious procedural error by the court, not attributable to AM or her advisers. This error, combined with the conduct of the immigration judge in refusing to reconsider the evidence application, refusing an adjournment for medical reasons, and proceeding in AM's absence, resulted in a breach of natural justice and denial of a fair hearing. The case fell within the exceptional category where judicial review was appropriate despite the statutory finality of section 103A. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the section 103A decision and the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; decisions set aside

Orders

  • Judge Sacks’ refusal to reconsider the application to have evidence taken by telephonic link is set aside and to be reconsidered by a different immigration judge.
  • Judge Sacks’ decision on AM’s appeal is set aside and her appeal is to be heard afresh by a different immigration judge.