The High Court has quashed in full a Ministerial refusal to revoke a deportation order and remitted the applicant’s section 3(11) application for reconsideration under detailed procedural directions.
In a judgment delivered on 25 September 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the flaws in the refusal were too central to be separated from the decision. The court had previously decided, in July 2018, that certiorari should issue in principle, then sought further submissions on the form of relief and whether the matter should return to the Minister.
The judge decided that remittal remained appropriate, despite further errors in the decision-making process and the passage of time. He said specific directions were warranted because earlier recommendations had not been followed and because the case had involved repeated legal errors. He stressed that the directions were unusual and should not be treated as a general standard for other cases.
The judgment identified four errors: failure to explain disagreement with a Refugee Appeals Tribunal member; failure to notify the applicant of material relied on; use of an incorrect test concerning evidence capable of giving rise to a risk under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and failure to give reasons for differing from what the judgment said might be suggested by the European Court of Human Rights decision in M.A. v France.
The Minister was directed to explain any renewed disagreement with the tribunal member, provide schedules of material intended to be considered, and apply the specified Article 3 approach. The applicant was directed to identify comparable cases and other matters said to arise from paragraph 64 of an earlier Supreme Court judgment. The Minister must give reasons if minded to reach a conclusion differing from that suggested by M.A. v France.
The court ordered the refusal quashed and the application remitted. It adjourned the challenge to the deportation order pending the outcome of the reconsideration; it did not decide that challenge in this judgment. The order set deadlines for exchange of material and submissions, and required the matter to be listed for mention on 27 November 2018.