The High Court has refused the respondents’ application for a certificate of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in a judicial review case involving an applicant identified as F.A. (Pakistan).
Mr Justice Eagar’s judgment, delivered on 17 December 2015, concerned the respondents’ request under section 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. They argued that the earlier High Court judgment involved a point of law of exceptional public importance and that an appeal would be desirable in the public interest.
The earlier judgment, delivered on 28 July 2015, had quashed a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal dated 24 January 2012 and remitted the applicant’s appeal for a fresh consideration by a different tribunal member. The present application concerned whether the respondents could appeal that ruling; it did not reconsider the applicant’s underlying appeal.
The respondents proposed two grounds for a certificate. The first concerned the absence of a transcript or record of evidence heard by the Tribunal and the earlier judge’s stated lack of sufficient information to assess the decision’s lawfulness. Mr Justice Eagar said the earlier case had not been decided on the basis that the Tribunal failed to provide copies of the evidence and questions. He also concluded that the legal issue did not meet the test of exceptional importance and that the law was not uncertain on that point.
The second proposed ground was divided into four complaints about how the earlier judgment addressed the Tribunal’s assessment of the applicant’s account of an alleged prior assault, the use of demeanour, discrimination and prosecution, and consideration of future risks of persecution. These were the respondents’ proposed grounds, not findings made in the certificate judgment.
Mr Justice Eagar said the earlier judgment relied on settled Supreme Court law concerning the duty to give reasons. He declined to certify a question asking whether those Supreme Court decisions had been correctly decided. He also considered that the respondents were seeking to re-litigate issues already determined and found that the matters raised were not of exceptional public importance.
The court refused the application for a certificate on both proposed grounds. The judgment did not itself decide the underlying refugee appeal or make a new determination on its merits.