[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 >> Butler, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1352 (9 August 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1352.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1352

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JACK BEATSON QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge))

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday 9 August 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an application for permission to appeal against a decision of Mr Jack Beatson QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 26 April 2002. The Deputy Judge refused the application. This is a renewed application for permission to appeal, permission having been refused on paper by Sir Philip Otton on 9 July for reasons which he spelt out in some detail.
2. We have heard Mr Juss as a vacation application. We have come to the conclusion that in this case the court should have the assistance of counsel on behalf of the proposed respondent. We adjourn the case in order that such assistance can be given. We also take the view that, to avoid further delay, the hearing should be arranged with appeal to follow if permission is granted.
3. I would indicate the matters which have been canvassed during the hearing before us. The application relates to "The Domestic and Violence Concession", which the Secretary of State announced by the Immigration Minister on 16 June 1999, with respect to partners, or spouses or unmarried partners, who have, in certain circumstances, suffered violence. The relevant pages of the Concession is included in the bundle of documents at pages 285-286. The applicant seeks to bring herself within that Concession. Reference is made to a case worker. There is a detailed report dated 26 July 2001 from a case worker at pages 403-408 of the bundle. Detailed reasons are given as to why, in the view of the case worker and adopted by the Secretary of State, the applicant did not bring herself within the concession.
4. On behalf of the applicant, further submissions were made in writing. The replies to these appear in the letters of 1 November 2000 (page 186 of the bundle) and 30 November 2000 (page 400). We are concerned, first, with the construction of the Concession and with the relevance, in the circumstances of this case, of an injunction which was obtained after the breakdown had occurred and not before.
5. We are also concerned with the fact that the learned judge accepted one part of the applicant's admission. The learned judge accepted that the Secretary of State was wrong to hold that there had been no violence in the course of the marriage. The submission, which can properly be made on the basis of the acceptance, is that, if the judge is right about that, it may be arguable (and we would wish to hear the respondent on this point too) that the Secretary of State has approached the second stage (as to the cause of the breakdown) on the wrong basis.
6. It may be argued that what this court has to consider, notwithstanding anything the judge below may have done, is the lawfulness of the decision of the Secretary of State and the test to be applied, in law, to his operation of the concessionary system. I say as much as that only to indicate the points which have led the court to the view, Mr Juss not having made detailed submissions upon the case worker report (which it appears to us to be an important document), THAT the case should be adjourned so that the court can hear not only Mr Juss but also a representative of the Secretary of State.
7. The points I have made are not intended to cover the whole case. No doubt other points may be made, but I have indicated the point which have concerned me in order to illustrate why I have thought it appropriate to adjourn the application.
8. LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK: I agree.
9. LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER: I agree.
Order: Application adjourned for respondent to attend. To be listed for half a day. Additional skeleton to be prepared by 1 September 2002. Skeleton in reply to be filed by 15 September 2002. Application that one member of the court should be female refused.