The Supreme Court held that a refusal by the Minister for Justice to consent to a fresh asylum application falls within the statutory 14-day limit for seeking judicial review. It allowed the Minister’s appeal on that preliminary point of statutory interpretation.
The applicant, identified in the judgment only as S., is a South African woman whose asylum application had been refused. She later sought the Minister’s consent under section 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996 to make a further application for refugee status. The Minister refused consent in a letter dated 2 April 2003.
S. sought judicial review of that refusal. The High Court treated as a preliminary issue whether the Minister’s decision was a “refusal” under section 5(1)(k) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. That provision requires judicial review to challenge such a refusal. A related provision generally requires an application to be made within 14 days of notification, unless the court dispenses with the time limit. The judgment states that S.’s application was made outside that period.
For S., counsel argued that the statutory wording covered only a refusal to grant refugee status under section 17(1), not a refusal of consent to apply again under section 17(7). Counsel accepted that the Minister’s letter was a refusal in the word’s ordinary meaning, but argued that it had a narrower meaning in this statutory context. Counsel also submitted that clear and unambiguous wording was needed because the provision affected the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation. Delivering judgment on 10 June 2004, Mr Justice Hardiman said the decision was made under section 17 and was a refusal in its ordinary and natural meaning. The words “a refusal under s.17” were clear and broad enough to include a refusal under section 17(7). The court found no ambiguity that justified giving “refusal” a special, narrower meaning.
The court allowed the appeal and held that the Minister’s section 17(7) decision was a refusal within section 5(1)(k) of the 2000 Act. Its ruling resolved that statutory question. The judgment does not state that the court decided the underlying grounds for judicial review or made a separate order dismissing the application.