The High Court has refused an applicant leave to challenge a deportation order, concluding that the Minister’s decision was based on the information available at the time and followed careful consideration by departmental officials.
In a judgment delivered on 22 January 2015, Ms Justice Stewart first extended the time for the applicant to bring the judicial review proceedings. The applicant said he had been served with a deportation order on 3 February 2011 and contacted legal services within the permitted period. The respondent did not object to an extension, which the judge granted.
The judge also admitted the applicant’s grounding affidavit, despite concerns about whether it had been understood and sworn in English. The applicant’s solicitor said he was satisfied the applicant understood it. The respondent accepted that the solicitor’s affidavit had attempted to address the issue. The judge noted that she might have taken a different view had the point been opposed, and said the guidance in an earlier case about affidavits from people who do not speak English should be followed.
The applicant had claimed to be Somali and a member of the Bajuni ethnic group. The asylum authorities rejected his claim, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision was not challenged. The Minister later treated him as Tanzanian, relying in part on a UK visa application made using a Tanzanian passport, fingerprint information and findings about his language and knowledge of Somalia and Bajuni culture. The applicant disputed that conclusion and challenged how his protection, medical and human-rights circumstances had been considered.
The applicant had chronic myeloid leukaemia and received a bone marrow transplant in February 2010. His representatives had told the department that further medical evidence would follow. A report dated 25 January 2011, describing complications and the specialist care he required, was sent by courier the next day. The department’s evidence was that it received the report after the deportation order had been made. The court said the Minister was entitled to decide on the material before him at the time.
The judge reviewed the exceptional circumstances threshold under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights for deportation involving serious illness. She concluded that the applicant’s circumstances, including his medical condition and representations, had been considered through the departmental process before the order was signed on 26 January 2011.
The court refused leave to seek judicial review. Because the matter was heard as a “telescoped hearing”, the judge said no further order was required.