[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Brati v Secretary Of State For Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1092 (19 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1092.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1092

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

		The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Friday 19 July 2002

Friday 19 July 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application for permission to appeal a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal given on 29 January 2002, in which this applicant's appeal from an adverse decision in his claim to asylum was dismissed.
2. The applicant, putting it shortly, is an Albanian citizen who came to this country in December 2000, and ultimately claimed asylum on the basis that he had been subjected to persecution by reason of his political activities and beliefs. He asserts that he has, as has his family, consistently supported the right-wing political parties in Albania and that as a result he was arrested and ill-treated, in particular after a demonstration in November 2000.
3. The adjudicator, having heard his evidence, concluded that his claim was not credible and accordingly dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State's original refusal to grant asylum. The applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The Vice President, Mr Rapinet, concluded:

"I am concerned that after an exhaustive examination of the evidence the adjudicator has not actually made any findings of fact. For this reason leave must be granted. Her findings in relation to the evidence do not warrant the criticism of these findings expressed in the grounds."

4. That was a somewhat curious grant of leave because, as was recognised when the matter came before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, the adjudicator had indeed made findings of fact, though whether adequate or properly-founded was perhaps another matter.
5. The Vice President dealing with the appeal, Mr Warr, in his decision clearly considered that facts had been found and it is at least arguable that he then moved straight, in effect, to dismissing the appeal on the basis that there had been no leave granted for any of the other criticisms of the adjudicator's reasoning; and did so without dealing with any of the arguments which would have been or might have been available on the part of the appellant to suggest that the Tribunal might have been entitled to consider, and indeed should have engaged in considering, the underlying reasoning of the adjudicator.
6. It is on the basis that, accordingly, it seems to me at least possible that a feeling of unfairness may have been engendered as a result of the way in which the matter was dealt with at the appeal tribunal stage that I consider that I should grant permission to appeal. Confronted with the problem presented by the way in which permission to appeal to the Tribunal had been granted, it seems to me that it was arguably open to the Tribunal to have considered the adjudicator's reasons on their merits and not simply dismissed criticism of them on the basis that there was no permission to appeal in respect of them.
7. It may well be that at the end of the day the criticisms that are made of those reasons will be found to be insufficient to justify the conclusion that the decision of the adjudicator was one which should have been interfered with by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. But I am prepared to allow the matter to be argued on its merits as well as in relation to the appropriate procedures that might have been adopted at the hearing of the appeal, so that the applicant may feel that his case has been fully and properly considered.
8. For those reasons, I am prepared to give permission to appeal.
ORDER: Application allowed with a time estimate of half a day, to be listed in the short warned list before two Lords Justices. (Order not part of approved judgment)