This essay was produced by our professional law writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies
Published: Wed, 07 Mar 2018
R (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; R (M) v Same  2 All ER 165;  1 WLR 1445
Immigration; judicial review
G and M were asylum seekers whose applications were refused by special adjudicators. They were also refused permissions to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, as were their applications to the High Court for judicial review of the tribunal’s decisions. Finally, their request to have the refusal of permission to appeal judicially reviewed was also rejected.
The claimants relied on s. 101(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in their application for review of the tribunal’s decisions.
The 2002 Act, and s. 101 in particular, introduced a new system of statutory review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decisions to refuse to grant permission to appeal to it from an adjudicator. The intention was that this new system should be used in lieu of judicial review as this would accelerate proceedings. Should both judicial and statutory review be allowed, s. 101 would not have the finality it was intended to achieve. The intention to expedite asylum procedures was legitimate, however, judicial review could still be used but only if the statutory review procedure did not ensure the rights of those entitled to asylum. The statutory system adequately protected the rights of asylum seekers even though it did not provide a right to an oral hearing – in other words, the court was entitled to decline an application for judicial review in this case. While the claimants’ cases arguably involved rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, there is no general right to remain in the UK and the claimants were thus not discriminated against under Article 14 of the ECHR.
Cite This Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: