R v Diggines, Ex parte Rahmani (Rahmani, Ex parte, Rahmani v Diggines)

An immigration adjudicator may determine an appeal without a hearing under Rule 12 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972 only when one of the rule’s prescribed conditions is satisfied. An appellant’s authorised representative remains authorised where the appellant has neither withdrawn nor exhausted the representative’s instructions.

The representative’s inability to contact the appellant, and a statement that no further instructions have been received, do not establish that the authority has ended. Where an oral hearing has been requested, the adjudicator cannot dispense with it without an unambiguous basis for concluding that the relevant statutory condition is met.

A mother and her two children appealed against the Secretary of State’s refusal to extend their leave to remain. They instructed the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service to represent them and requested an oral hearing. After the Service failed to record their new address, it could not contact the mother and invited the adjudicator to determine the appeals as he considered proper. The adjudicator dismissed them without a hearing under Rule 12 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972.

Taylor J granted certiorari and mandamus on the ground that determining the appeals without a hearing had infringed natural justice. The Court of Appeal dismissed the adjudicator’s appeal: [1985] 1 All ER 1073; [1985] QB 1109. The adjudicator appealed to the House of Lords. The central issue became whether the conditions prescribed by Rule 12 for dispensing with a hearing had been satisfied.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Scarman delivered the leading speech. Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Roskill, Lord Templeman and Lord Mackay of Clashfern agreed with his reasoning and conclusion.

2. Per Lord Scarman, Rule 12 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972 was the only rule empowering the adjudicator to determine this appeal without a hearing. That power arose only if one of the conditions specified in the rule was satisfied. The applicants had expressly requested an oral hearing and had authorised the Service to represent them.

3. The applicants never withdrew the Service’s authority. The Service’s inability to locate the mother resulted from its own failure to record her new address. Its letter stating that it had received no further instructions and asking the adjudicator to determine the case as he thought proper did not state that its existing instructions had been withdrawn or exhausted. Indeed, the applicants’ last instructions required a hearing and representation by the Service.

4. Per Lord Scarman, the adjudicator therefore had no reason to be satisfied that nobody remained authorised to represent the applicants at a hearing. Before acting on that basis, he should have required an unambiguous declaration that the Service’s instructions had been withdrawn or that it had no instructions. A necessary condition for exercising the Rule 12 power was absent. The adjudicator consequently erred in law.

5. The House did not decide whether a decision lying within a statutory power, and reached without procedural fault by the decision-maker, may nevertheless be quashed because its unforeseen effect infringed natural justice. Although that proposition had formed the basis of the decisions below, it did not arise once the House concluded that Rule 12 conferred no jurisdiction on these facts. Lord Scarman expressly reserved any opinion upon it.

6. The Court of Appeal’s decision was affirmed on the alternative ground that the adjudicator had acted outside Rule 12. The adjudicator’s appeal was dismissed with costs in the House and below.

1. House of Lords: Dismissed the adjudicator’s appeal unanimously and affirmed the Court of Appeal on the alternative ground that the conditions for exercising Rule 12 had not been satisfied.
2. Court of Appeal: Stephenson, Fox and Purchas LJJ dismissed the adjudicator’s appeal on 20 December 1984, holding that the denial of a hearing infringed natural justice: [1985] 1 All ER 1073; [1985] QB 1109.
3. High Court: Taylor J allowed the applications for judicial review on 16 June 1983. He granted certiorari quashing the adjudicator’s determination and mandamus requiring the appeals to be reheard orally.
4. Immigration adjudicator: On 16 December 1981, the adjudicator dismissed the immigration appeals without an oral hearing in purported reliance on Rule 12 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972.