The High Court refused an application for leave to seek judicial review and an application for a stay on deportation in a case involving an amended deportation order. The ruling was delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 8 June 2017, after an ex parte application by five anonymised applicants. The first named applicant was the person facing removal.
The court said the application was out of time. Counsel accepted this, and the judge proceeded on the assumption, without deciding, that there were grounds to extend time.
The first named applicant, a South African national, had previously applied for asylum under a false name and a false Zimbabwean nationality. That application was refused, including on appeal. A deportation order was later made in the false name. After he applied to have the order revoked under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999, the Minister refused revocation but amended the order to include his correct name as an alias.
The applicant’s later section 3(11) application argued, among other things, that the amendment had been made without notice and that deportation would harm his family. The judge found no substantial grounds to challenge the amendment. He said the applicant accepted making the false application, had not shown what he would have said if given notice, and the Minister was entitled under section 3(11) to amend the order. The court also rejected the claim that the Minister had failed to consider the family’s circumstances, noting that the Minister’s analysis had addressed possible interference with family rights.
The judge refused leave. He also refused an injunction that would have restrained deportation. Applying the Supreme Court’s approach in *Okunade*, he said the public interest in implementing a measure that was prima facie valid favoured allowing deportation to proceed. Counsel’s submissions included that two children had special needs and that the first named applicant played a significant role in their lives. The judge said those matters had also been considered by the Minister and did not outweigh the default position. He added that the amendment correcting the name was not a new fact of the exceptional kind that could justify an injunction in this context.
The court’s order was limited to refusing leave to apply for judicial review and refusing a stay on deportation. The ruling did not grant the requested relief.