Abbasi & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Foreign & Commonwealth Office & Ors

Permission to intervene is discretionary. The central question is whether the intervention would provide significant assistance in resolving the issues raised by the case. Lateness and the pressure placed on existing parties are relevant considerations. The court should confine the hearing to relevant evidence and refuse material concerning other possible applicants where it would obfuscate the task or impose unfair pressure. Duplication is also material: intervention is unnecessary where existing counsel can present the relevant case effectively.

Mr Abbasi, a British citizen detained by American forces at Guantanamo Bay, and his mother appealed after Richards J refused permission on 15 March 2002 to seek judicial review of an alleged failure by UK ministers to take diplomatic steps concerning his detention. Following permission granted on renewal, relatives of four other alleged detainees applied to intervene under CPR 54.17 or the inherent jurisdiction. They sought to introduce factual evidence about their relatives and support submissions already advanced. The central issue was whether their intervention would assist the court in resolving the appeal without unfairly expanding the evidential burden.

1. Applications dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applications to intervene with costs. Lord Phillips MR delivered the judgment, with which Lord Justice Waller and Mr Justice Carnwath agreed.
2. The court treated the decisive question as whether intervention would provide significant assistance in resolving the important issues in the appeal. The lateness of the evidence and skeleton argument created unfair pressure, but the court would have been prepared to permit intervention despite that difficulty if significant assistance would result.
3. The proposed intervenors wished to rely on facts concerning other alleged detainees, including relatives of persons detained in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The court accepted that the appeal should be decided on the evidence relevant to the particular case. It would obfuscate the task to require the respondents to address extraneous facts relating to possible applicants who had not themselves brought judicial review proceedings. Reliance on the evidence of Sally Begg was not pressed.
4. The proposed intervenors also intended to support the existing claimants' submissions. Lord Phillips considered that the claimants' counsel was fully able to advance all relevant material effectively. The additional submissions therefore supplied no sufficient basis for intervention. The court adopted the same approach as Richards J had taken below.

• Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court): Richards J refused permission on 15 March 2002 to pursue judicial review.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On a renewed application on 1 July 2002, permission was granted and the matter was reserved to the court. On 21 August 2002, Keene LJ adjourned the applications to intervene for determination in open court. The Court of Appeal then dismissed the applications to intervene with costs in [2002] EWCA Civ 1316. The supplied judgment does not record the final determination of the underlying appeal.