CO/3829/2004 
Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWHC 3025 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION  
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2 

Wednesday, 6th October 2004
 
B E F O R E:

MR JUSTICE DAVIS 

- - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MYLVAGANAM
(CLAIMANT)
 
 - - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -
MR T U COORAY (instructed by Thompson and Co) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR P PATEL (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
 - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MR JUSTICE DAVIS:  The manner in which this applicant arrived in this country using a forged passport and did not claim asylum immediately is unimpressive.  In addition, some of the points that have been raised on his behalf are also extremely unimpressive.  I reject the ground advanced that there was here procedural unfairness.  Indeed, it is a bit cool of the applicant to assert that when he himself did not have his tackle in order when making his representations to the Secretary of State. 
2.	The position is that the Secretary of State, through a very detailed decision letter dated 30th July 2004, has rejected the claim put forward and has certified, by reference to section 94(2) and (3) of the 2002 Act, which, of course, is to be construed in the light of the decision in Thangarasa.  
3.	Having considered the arguments, I am just persuaded that there may be a point with regard to aspects of the decision letter, in particular as to whether the applicant can safely be removed to certain parts of Sri Lanka given what is asserted to be the applicant's high profile political status as a Tamil who does not support the LTTE.  
4.	Accordingly, I am just persuaded that this is a case where I should grant permission.  Whether at any substantive hearing the argument will prove to be well-founded remains to be seen, and, even if they do, whether the claims put forward could survive a hearing on the facts in front of an Adjudicator also remains to be seen.  On the whole I grant permission, but not on the procedural unfairness ground.
5.	Mr Patel, what is the position about -- is he currently detained? 
6.	MR COORAY:  No, my Lord.
7.	MR JUSTICE DAVIS:  He is on bail? 
8.	MR PATEL:  I think so, my Lord.
9.	MR JUSTICE DAVIS:  Sometimes these things go for a full hearing and sometimes they do not.  Applications sometimes prove to be a longer process than going straight to a hearing before an Adjudicator.  What I would say is that one way or the other this matter should come on for a hearing as soon as possible.
10.	MR PATEL:  My Lord, we would welcome that.  You will note our comments in the acknowledgment of service.
11.	MR JUSTICE DAVIS:  Absolutely.  On the footing that there will be a full hearing, you have your materials now in, Mr Cooray, whether you are allowed to put in any more bearing in mind your transition letter remains to be seen.  What do you think, Mr Patel, in terms of getting this on quickly? 
12.	MR PATEL:  My Lord, there are a series of cases on section 94.
13.	MR JUSTICE DAVIS:  If I want to make this fact specific to this particular applicant, to his own political alleged background. 
14.	MR PATEL:  My Lord, I appreciate that.  Without speaking to my solicitor I think the -- 
15.	MR JUSTICE DAVIS:  You might want to group this one with the other ones? 
16.	MR PATEL:  It may be possible to do that.  On the other hand, it may be better to take it on its own.  I don't know.
17.	MR JUSTICE DAVIS:  What I will do is I will give a direction that the substantive hearing of this judicial review application I direct expedition.  Could you both, please, try and arrange an early date as is convenient.  Costs will be reserved to the full hearing.  Thank you very much, Mr Cooray.  Thank you very much, Mr Patel.