Tamale v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where an application for permission to appeal raises an important arguable issue about the treatment of favourable findings made by an original adjudicator, the court may adjourn the application so that the respondent can be represented and assist on the point. That course is particularly appropriate where the respondent is absent and the issue cannot fairly be determined on the material presently before the court. The adjournment is procedural and does not determine the merits of the asylum or human-rights claims.

The appellant, a Ugandan citizen, challenged an order of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal dated 12 July 2005. The Tribunal had upheld an adjudicator’s dismissal of her appeal against refusal of asylum, refusal of leave to remain on human-rights grounds, and removal directions.

The original adjudicator had accepted substantial parts of her factual account but rejected her stated fear on return. Following an earlier remittal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, a two-judge Tribunal panel reconsidered the case and found her account incredible. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had disregarded the original adjudicator’s favourable findings. She appeared in person, with limited English; the respondent did not attend. The central issue was whether she was entitled to the benefit of those findings on reconsideration.

1. Application adjourned. The court did not determine permission to appeal or the underlying asylum, human-rights, or removal issues.
2. The appellant’s grounds raised an important arguable question: whether, after permission to appeal and reconsideration, she was entitled to retain the benefit of favourable findings of fact made by the original adjudicator, and whether the Tribunal had unlawfully deprived her of that benefit by making adverse credibility findings.
3. The court considered that it could not fairly determine that issue without assistance from the respondent. The respondent was therefore to be represented at the adjourned hearing so that the court could be assisted on the legal point.
4. The absence of an interpreter, although noted, was not itself the reason for adjournment. The case was adjourned to 16 November 2005 at 9.45 am, with the Treasury Solicitor directed to obtain the papers and brief counsel.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On 12 July 2005, upheld the adjudicator’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against refusal of asylum and human-rights leave, and against removal directions.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: On 3 March 2005, remitted the matter for consideration by a different adjudicator; transitional provisions resulted in reconsideration by a two-judge AIT panel.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Adjourned the application for permission to appeal to enable the respondent to be represented.