The High Court dismissed two related judicial review proceedings brought for a Nigerian mother’s minor children, and also dismissed applications to amend the cases to challenge their appeal decisions. The court did not decide the proposed challenges to those Tribunal decisions on their merits.
The cases concerned the children’s asylum applications and reports by the Refugee Applications Commissioner recommending against refugee status. Their mother had said she feared for their safety and welfare if returned to Nigeria, including because her son needed treatment for an eye complaint, she could not support the children there, and they could face ethnic, religious and communal conflict.
The Commissioner’s reports, notified in September 2011, said the asylum applications had not been made within a reasonable time. That meant oral appeal hearings were excluded under section 13(6)(c) of the Refugee Act 1996. The children’s appeals were lodged on 14 September. Their judicial review cases were issued on 29 September, before the Tribunal decisions were notified by letters dated 30 September.
The respondents sought dismissal, arguing that the reports could no longer be challenged once the Tribunal had decided the appeals. The applicants sought to amend their cases to add challenges to those appeal decisions.
Justice Cooke rejected the argument that a Commissioner’s report necessarily ceases to have legal significance after an appeal decision. He followed the approach in an earlier High Court judgment, finding that a report could retain an autonomous status and could have potential consequences in later decisions. But that did not mean judicial review had to be allowed where a statutory appeal had been available and completed.
The judge found the judicial review proceedings were approximately seven days out of time. He said no good and sufficient reason had been advanced to extend the time limit, noting that the applicants had legal representation and had appealed within six days of receiving the reports. He also found the proposed grounds did not warrant a further judicial review: many were suitable for the Tribunal appeal, were general assertions, or did not directly concern the reports’ legality.
The court granted the respondents’ dismissal applications. It therefore did not need to consider the proposed amendments, which it dismissed as well. The judgment did not determine the merits of the children’s asylum claims or the validity of the Tribunal appeal decisions.