Syed, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal

An adjudicator does not deny legal representation merely because counsel withdraws after an adjournment application has been refused. Under rule 31(1) of the Immigration and Asylum (Procedure) Rules 2000, an adjournment should be granted only where refusal would prevent the just disposal of the appeal. A tribunal may rely on the adjudicator’s account of the hearing where there is no satisfactory evidence to displace it. A late application concerning documents already addressed in the appellant’s evidence may properly be refused.

The claimant challenged the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal against an adjudicator’s determination dismissing his asylum appeal. At the hearing, counsel sought an adjournment concerning two Polish documents, including alleged translation difficulties. The adjudicator refused the application, counsel withdrew, and the claimant and his wife proceeded without representation. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal concluded that the proceedings had been conducted fairly and refused permission to appeal. The judicial review claim alleged that the adjudicator had denied the claimant legal representation and had acted unlawfully in refusing the adjournment.

1. The application was dismissed. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had disclosed no error of law in refusing permission to appeal.
2. The adjudicator had not denied the claimant legal representation. The claimant had been represented when the hearing began, counsel had made an adjournment application, and counsel’s subsequent decision to withdraw could not fairly be attributed to the adjudicator.
3. Rule 31(1) of the Immigration and Asylum (Procedure) Rules 2000 gave a clear statutory direction that an adjournment should not be granted unless refusal would prevent the just disposal of the appeal. The application was made without prior warning on the morning of the hearing. It concerned alleged inaccuracies in documents which had already been addressed in the claimant’s evidence. The adjudicator also understood that the claimant and his wife spoke Polish and English, and that translations had been provided.
4. The adjudicator’s record stated that the claimant and his wife wished the case to proceed after counsel withdrew. There was no satisfactory evidence, as distinct from submissions, capable of displacing that account. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the proceedings had been conducted fairly.
5. There was therefore no arguable basis for saying either that the claimant had been deprived of legal representation or that the refusal of the adjournment was outside the adjudicator’s powers.

• Adjudicator: dismissed the claimant’s asylum appeal after refusing an adjournment application.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: refused leave to appeal, finding no arguable error in the conduct of the proceedings.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review application.