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

A renewed application for permission to bring judicial review should be refused where the original decision is not arguably unlawful. A material deterioration in country conditions may require the decision-maker to reconsider the individual case, but does not itself make the earlier decision susceptible to judicial review. The court should distinguish between an arguable error in the original decision and subsequent developments which have not yet been adequately considered by the decision-maker. Where relevant proceedings and further country guidance are imminent, the appropriate course may be for the Secretary of State to consider the new material before any further judicial review claim is pursued.

The claimant, a Sri Lankan national, sought permission for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s September 2006 certification of his asylum claim. He relied on deteriorating conditions in Sri Lanka, his detention on suspicion of LTTE membership, the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and evidence suggesting systematic torture.

A single judge had refused permission on the papers. On renewal, the claimant accepted that there was no serious argument that the original decision was itself flawed, but argued that subsequent events justified permission. Related proceedings before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had been adjourned pending anticipated country guidance.

1. Permission refused. The September 2006 decision was not arguably susceptible to judicial review. The claimant advanced no serious case that the decision was unlawful when made.
2. Subsequent deterioration in Sri Lankan conditions, including the risk arising from suspected LTTE links, detention, the Prevention of Terrorism Act and reports of systematic torture, could be relevant to the claimant’s current position. Those developments did not, without more, establish that the earlier certification decision was unlawful.
3. The material before the court included a recent letter which the Secretary of State had not had sufficient time to answer or consider in the light of the claimant’s individual circumstances. That supported reconsideration by the Secretary of State, rather than permission to challenge the September 2006 decision.
4. The case was not of the kind contemplated in Launder. Ongoing proceedings and expected country guidance meant that the Secretary of State should consider the new circumstances before taking precipitate action. The claimant declined an adjournment and was refused permission.
5. The application for the Secretary of State’s costs of the acknowledgment of service was refused.

1. Single judge: Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): On renewal, permission was refused.