The High Court has refused the respondents’ application for a certificate allowing an appeal to the Court of Appeal over an earlier judicial review ruling concerning a Pakistani applicant’s refugee appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2015, Mr Justice Eagar said the respondents had applied under section 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. They had to show that the proposed appeal involved a point of law of exceptional public importance and that an appeal was desirable in the public interest. The court outlined that these are cumulative requirements and that the certification power must be used sparingly.
The underlying High Court judgment, delivered on 28 July 2015, had granted certiorari quashing a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision dated 24 January 2012. It remitted the applicant’s appeal for a fresh, de novo consideration by a different Tribunal member. This judgment addressed only whether the respondents could obtain a certificate to appeal; it did not revisit or alter that earlier order.
The respondents proposed grounds concerning the absence of a transcript or record of the Tribunal hearing, the High Court’s assessment of the Tribunal’s reasons and credibility findings, and the treatment of the applicant’s account of an alleged prior assault, discrimination and future risk of persecution. These were the respondents’ proposed appeal issues, not findings made in this certificate application.
Justice Eagar rejected the first ground, explaining that the July judgment had not been decided on the basis that the Tribunal failed to provide copies of the evidence and questions from the hearing. Although the earlier judgment had expressed concern about the information available about the evidential hearing, the court said the point did not meet the exceptional-importance test and that the relevant law was not uncertain.
As to the remaining proposed grounds, the court said the duty to give reasons was settled in Supreme Court jurisprudence and declined to certify a question about whether Supreme Court decisions had been correctly decided. It also considered that the respondents were seeking to re-litigate issues already determined. The court concluded that the proposed matters were not of exceptional public importance and refused the application on both grounds.