The Supreme Court has allowed Mohamed Ahmed Saalim more time to seek judicial review of an immigration decision notified to him in November 2000, overturning a High Court refusal to extend the statutory deadline.
Saalim had been refused refugee status on March 1, 2000. A subsequent appeal was rejected, and he was notified by letter dated November 17, 2000, which he received on November 20.
Under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, an application for leave to seek judicial review generally had to be made within 14 days of notification, unless the High Court found good and sufficient reason to extend that period.
The High Court had refused an extension in relation to the November decision, finding that portions of the delay by Saalim’s legal advisers were neither explained nor excused. It noted, however, that the delay could not be attributed personally to Saalim.
By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, Saalim was no longer appealing the refusal of an extension concerning the original March 2000 refugee decision. He had also already obtained leave to challenge a related decision of the Appeals Authority dated July 31, 2000.
Denham J said that existing judicial review was an important factor. The November decision was based on the Appeals Authority recommendation already under challenge, and the court considered it unrealistic to permit review of the recommendation while preventing a challenge to the subsequent decision based upon it.
The Supreme Court also considered that the additional delay was short, amounting to weeks; that the case arose during a transition following the commencement of the 2000 Act; that the delay largely resulted from legal advisers; and that the State suffered no prejudice.
The court stressed that delays by lawyers will not generally, by themselves, justify an extension and that legal advisers must act promptly in such cases. On the particular facts, however, it found good and sufficient reasons to extend time and allowed Saalim’s appeal.