BB, R (on the application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission

BB, R (on the application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission

Bail proceedings under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 are subject to the same Article 5(4) ECHR procedural standard, as laid down in A v United Kingdom and Cart, regardless of whether they occur before or after SIAC's substantive judgment. SIAC cannot rely on closed judgments or findings based...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen (on the application of BB); Defendant: Special Immigration Appeals Commission; Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed
Legal Topics
Bail Proceedings, Disclosure of Closed Material, Article 5(4) ECHR, National Security Deportation, Procedural Fairness
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Bail Proceedings Disclosure of Closed Material Article 5(4) ECHR National Security Deportation Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the application of BB)

Claimant

Special Immigration Appeals Commission

Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SIAC can rely on closed judgments or findings based on closed material in bail proceedings post-substantive appeal without disclosure meeting Article 5(4) ECHR standards
  2. 2 Whether the Article 5(4) procedural standard applies equally before and after SIAC's substantive judgment in deportation appeals

Ratio Decidendi

Bail proceedings under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 are subject to the same Article 5(4) ECHR procedural standard, as laid down in A v United Kingdom and Cart, regardless of whether they occur before or after SIAC's substantive judgment. SIAC cannot rely on closed judgments or findings based on closed material in bail proceedings without providing sufficient disclosure to meet the Article 5(4) standard.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed

Orders

  • The approach taken by SIAC in its decision of 24 June 2009 was erroneous.
  • A further application for bail can now be made and will fall to be considered in accordance with this court’s judgment.