The High Court has allowed Y.Y. to amend judicial review proceedings to add a specific ground concerning alleged secret detention in Algeria. The decision permits the amendment; it does not decide whether the detention occurred or whether the deportation order should be revoked.
The case concerns a decision under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 refusing to revoke a deportation order against Y.Y. That decision was notified on 22 November 2018. Y.Y.’s statement of grounds was amended on 10 December to challenge it, but did not include a specific ground about secret detention in Algeria.
After a January 2019 decision in the same proceedings, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave Y.Y. an opportunity to consider seeking a further amendment on that issue. Y.Y. applied, and the Minister for Justice and Equality opposed the application.
The court considered whether the proposed amendment met a three-part test: an explanation for its late inclusion, arguability, and absence of irremediable prejudice. Y.Y.’s solicitor’s affidavit described the omission as a lawyers’ error. The Minister’s counsel argued that this explanation was new and did not explain why the issue had appeared in earlier versions of the proceedings but not in the latest one.
The judge accepted the error as an explanation, noting that an error by lawyers had been accepted as an explanation in a Supreme Court case. The Minister did not contest that the proposed point was arguable.
On prejudice, the only specific concern identified was that the point was raised outside the 28-day judicial review time limit. The judge distinguished refining a challenge brought in time from bringing a challenge outside the time limit in the first place. He said the latter requires a considerably higher threshold of good and sufficient reason, while refinement requires an explanation. He concluded that the criteria for allowing this amendment had been met.
The court ordered that Y.Y. have liberty to amend the statement of grounds in line with the draft exhibited in the solicitor’s affidavit. The judgment does not resolve the amended judicial review challenge or make a finding on the secret-detention allegation.