NS (Rwanda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal may be granted without formally restricting the grounds where the court identifies one issue as the most arguable while indicating that other grounds are less persuasive. The grant of permission in such circumstances does not determine the merits of any ground. The court may also direct that the appeal be heard by a three-judge constitution and permit one member to be a High Court judge.

NS (Rwanda) sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal decision identified as AIT No. HX/07792/2004. The proposed grounds included an Article 8 issue and other grounds. The court considered Article 8 the best and most arguable point, but did not formally restrict permission to that ground. The application therefore concerned permission, the scope of the appeal, and its proposed constitution, rather than determination of the substantive immigration issues.

1. Application granted. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Hooper, was minded to grant permission after considering the papers.
2. The court regarded the Article 8 point as the best and most arguable ground. It considered the other grounds less persuasive, but did not formally restrict permission to appeal. Those observations concerned the relative arguability of the grounds at the permission stage and did not decide their merits.
3. The court tentatively estimated that the appeal would require about two hours for argument, excluding judgment. It directed that the appeal should be heard by a three-judge court, with the possibility that one judge would be a High Court judge to facilitate constitution of the court.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On an application arising from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal proceedings, permission to appeal was granted. The Article 8 ground was identified as the most arguable, but permission was not formally restricted.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The underlying decision is identified as AIT No. HX/07792/2004. Its substantive reasoning and outcome are not stated in the judgment.