Shylolibavan v SSHD [2009] EWHC 1067 (Admin) (15 May 2009)

Shylolibavan v SSHD [2009] EWHC 1067 (Admin) (15 May 2009)

The Secretary of State's refusal to treat the further submissions as a fresh claim for asylum was lawful and rational, as the new material did not create a realistic prospect of success and the decision was consistent with anxious scrutiny and relevant case law. However, the claimant's detention from 3 to 28 September 2007 was unlawful because the reasons given for detention were not justified on the evidence, the decision was taken without proper consideration of alternatives or the claimant's circumstances, and there was non-compliance with Home Office policy.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1067 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Shylolibavan; Defendant: SSHD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed as to asylum issue; claim succeeds as to unlawful detention.
Legal Topics
Asylum, Fresh Claim, Unlawful Detention, Judicial Review, Immigration Detention, Refugee Convention, ECHR Article 3
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Asylum Fresh Claim Unlawful Detention Judicial Review Immigration Detention +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shylolibavan

Claimant

SSHD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to treat further submissions as a fresh claim for asylum was irrational
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's detention from 3 to 28 September 2007 was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's refusal to treat the further submissions as a fresh claim for asylum was lawful and rational, as the new material did not create a realistic prospect of success and the decision was consistent with anxious scrutiny and relevant case law. However, the claimant's detention from 3 to 28 September 2007 was unlawful because the reasons given for detention were not justified on the evidence, the decision was taken without proper consideration of alternatives or the claimant's circumstances, and there was non-compliance with Home Office policy.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as to asylum issue; claim succeeds as to unlawful detention.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review of asylum refusal dismissed.
  • Declaration that detention from 3 to 28 September 2007 was unlawful.