Read the full judgment text of CACV 000185/1990 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 January 1991 before Sir Derek Cons VP, Kempster JA, Clough JA.
Administrative law – judicial review – refugee status – asylum-seekers – interlocutory decision – leave to appeal to Privy Council – admissibility of evidence – Wednesbury unreasonableness – test of great, general or public importance. The applicants, nine Vietnamese asylum-seekers detained at Whitehead Detention Centre, brought judicial review proceedings contesting the rejection of their applications to be granted refugee status as defined in the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 as amended by the 1967 Protocol. Mortimer J. declined to admit particular evidence tendered for his consideration, and the Court of Appeal (Madam Lee Bun & Lee Ching Ming v. Director of Immigration, Civil Appeals 54 & 55/90) affirmed that decision on 29 June 1990. The applicants then sought leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, contending that the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that Wednesbury unreasonableness is to be judged only with regard to the material before the lower tribunal, and that Bugdaycay v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] 1 AC 514 (and perhaps Re "H" unreported CO/826/86) did not extend, in cases of political asylum and refugee status, the principles of admissibility set out in R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment: ex. p. Powis [1981] 1 WLR 585. Under Rule 2(b) of the Order in Council of 27 November 1957, leave to appeal on an interlocutory decision could only be granted if the questions involved are of great, general or public importance. The Court noted that the proceedings below had been separated and were continuing with regard to one Applicant, with judgment expected on 1 February 1991, and further applications for leave to appeal likely. It was therefore most desirable that the Privy Council be troubled with all the matters together rather than piecemeal. Application for leave adjourned sine die with liberty to restore; costs reserved.
Legal issues: Whether to grant leave to appeal to Privy Council on an interlocutory judicial review decision
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council adjourned sine die with liberty to restore, with costs reserved.