The High Court has dismissed M.N. (Malawi)’s application for leave to appeal a judgment refusing to quash a review decision and a consequential deportation order.
In a judgment delivered on 22 July 2019, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys considered whether the applicant’s proposed appeal raised a question of exceptional public importance. The proposed question concerned whether the Minister for Justice and Equality, when notifying an applicant of reasons for a deportation order under section 51(3) of the International Protection Act 2015, had to disclose matters considered under section 50, including country of origin information.
The judge identified three difficulties with the proposed appeal. First, in the earlier judgment, he had found that the information was readily ascertainable from the file. He said the decision-maker had to make the material considered ascertainable, rather than list it narratively, and noted there was no authority for requiring the latter.
Second, the applicant had made no submissions before the decision and had not sought particulars of the information considered. The judge said this made it unlikely the applicant could succeed on that ground, and that the Court of Appeal might not reach the proposed issue if an appeal proceeded.
Third, the judge considered the legal principles well established. Referring to Supreme Court decisions including *Baby O.* and *Meadows*, he said that where an applicant makes no relevant submission, the rationale for the decision need not be expressly set out. Where particular submissions are made, the reasons must make the decision’s rationale discernible. He found no uncertainty requiring further appellate clarification.
The application before the High Court was for leave to appeal the earlier refusal of certiorari. The court dismissed that leave application. The judgment does not itself determine a new challenge to the review decision or deportation order.