Lamonovs & Anor v Secretary Of State For Home Department

In a safe-third-country asylum case, judicial review will not succeed where the Secretary of State has rationally assessed the applicant’s own account and country evidence, and was entitled to conclude that the proposed receiving state was willing and able to provide protection. General evidence of discrimination or possible failures by local authorities does not necessarily establish a protection gap. An application for permission to appeal out of time requires a proper explanation for the delay. Repeated unexplained delays, particularly immediately before removal directions, may amount to an abuse of the court’s process.

The applicants, Latvian nationals of Russian origin, claimed asylum in the United Kingdom after arriving in transit to France. France accepted responsibility for determining their claims under the Dublin Convention. The Secretary of State refused the claims on safe-third-country grounds and certified removal to France under section 2(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.

Collins J refused permission to apply for judicial review on paper. Stanley Burnton J later refused renewed permission. The applicants sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time, relying on evidence concerning discrimination and protection for Russians in Latvia. The central issues were whether there was any realistic prospect of impugning the Secretary of State’s decision and whether an extension of time should be granted.

1. Applications dismissed. There was no proper reason for extending time, and no realistic prospect that judicial review would succeed.
2. The relevant question was whether the applicants had any prospect of impugning the Secretary of State’s view that France was a safe third country. The Secretary of State was entitled to consider the applicants’ own accounts, including their report to the Latvian police and the investigation undertaken.
3. The evidence concerning Latvia did not undermine the conclusion that the rule of law applied and that the Latvian authorities did not encourage, condone or tolerate unlawful acts. Evidence of language-related discrimination was state-imposed and did not establish the relevant protection gap. Other evidence largely concerned discrimination rather than persecution, and did not sufficiently show persecution by non-state agents from whom the Latvian authorities were unable to protect the applicants.
4. The principle identified in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Adan did not assist the applicants on these facts. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the Latvian authorities could reasonably be considered willing and able to provide protection.
5. Repeated delays by the applicants’ solicitors, including applications lodged immediately before removal directions, appeared to constitute an abuse of the court’s process and the arrangements for dealing with asylum claims. A show-cause order was made concerning the solicitors’ personal liability for costs.

• High Court: Collins J refused permission to apply for judicial review on paper. Stanley Burnton J refused the renewed application on 17 January 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice May dismissed the applications for permission to appeal out of time.