Kaymak, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department

An appellate court will interfere with a procedural decision to refuse an adjournment only where the decision is unreasonable or perverse, having regard to the fairness and effective conduct of the proceedings. The decision-maker may consider the lateness of the request, the applicant’s presentation and responses, and the available evidence relevant to credibility and the alleged harm. A tribunal is also entitled to give no weight to hearsay evidence where it has properly assessed its evidential value. Permission to appeal should be refused where the lower court was entitled to conclude that the tribunal’s decisions disclosed no arguable unreasonableness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Special Adjudicator’s refusal to adjourn an asylum appeal to obtain a psychological report and of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal. The deputy High Court judge, Mr Beatson QC, upheld the decisions. The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the adjournment was necessary because credibility was central and that the Special Adjudicator had acted unreasonably in rejecting his evidence.

1. Permission refused. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed, subject to legal aid assessment.
2. The refusal of an adjournment was essentially a discretionary procedural decision. The relevant question was whether the decision was unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances, applying the test identified in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Al-Mehdawi [1990] 1 AC 876.
3. The Special Adjudicator was entitled to consider the lateness of the request, the applicant’s appearance and the coherence of his answers. She was also entitled to take account of the absence of medical evidence concerning his physical condition, particularly because the allegations involved torture, beating and scars, even though the requested report concerned psychological condition.
4. There was no arguable basis for concluding that the Special Adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable or perverse. The same conclusion applied to the adverse credibility findings. The Special Adjudicator had properly assessed the brother’s hearsay evidence and was entitled to give it no weight.
5. The Court of Appeal endorsed the deputy judge’s conclusion that the tribunal had properly taken the relevant matters into account. The applicant’s importance as an asylum-seeker did not justify appellate intervention where no arguable procedural unfairness or irrationality had been shown.

• High Court, Administrative Court: Mr Beatson QC considered the application for judicial review of the Special Adjudicator’s refusal to adjourn and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal, and rejected the challenge.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused and the application was dismissed.