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

Urgent judicial review applications seeking to prevent removal must comply fully with the Administrative Court’s procedural requirements. The applicant’s representatives must explain the urgency, identify when the need for immediate consideration arose, account for delay and describe efforts to notify the defendant.

The court may refuse to consider a materially deficient application, including solely because delay or urgency has not been adequately explained. It may require the responsible solicitor and senior partner to attend in open court, identify the firm publicly and refer persistent or serious non-compliance to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Last-minute, meritless applications designed merely to delay removal may amount to an abuse of the court’s service and may raise issues of professional misconduct.

The claimant, a Bangladeshi student whose leave had been curtailed, was detained as an overstayer and served with directions for his removal. After representations to the Secretary of State had been rejected, solicitors made an urgent application to the Administrative Court on the afternoon before the scheduled flight.

The application form gave no reasons for urgency, did not state when the need for immediate consideration had first been appreciated and did not explain whether the defendant had been notified. A judge refused the application as totally without merit. The Divisional Court then required the responsible solicitor to attend and considered the consequences of failing to comply with the revised form N463 and the professional obligations governing urgent removal applications.

1. Disposition. The urgent application had been refused as totally without merit. The Divisional Court accepted the solicitor’s apology and, because neither the solicitor nor the caseworker had appreciated the revised requirements, did not name the solicitor, employee or firm. It issued a prospective warning governing future urgent applications.

2. The revised form N463 required an applicant to state the reasons for urgency and the proposed timetable. It also required the applicant to identify when the need for immediate consideration was first appreciated, explain any delay and describe efforts to notify the defendant or any interested party. These requirements responded to the large number of late applications seeking to prevent removal, many of which lacked merit.

3. The principles in R (Madan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 1 WLR 2891 had to be observed. Applications challenging removal must be made promptly following intimation of the decision and must not await the fixing of removal arrangements. Legal representatives appearing without notice must disclose adverse matters and previous decisions, draw attention to relevant authorities and keep a proper note of the judge’s reasons. An application made merely to postpone implementation of an earlier decision, without proper grounds, may involve professional misconduct.

4. For future cases, failure to provide the information required by the form may result in the responsible solicitor and the firm’s senior partner being required to attend in open court. The court may list both the case and the firm’s name. A judge may also refuse to consider an application where the form is incomplete or where the explanation of urgency or delay is inadequate. The same approach applies to the forms for out-of-hours applications and renewals following refusal on the papers.

5. Late, meritless removal or deportation applications waste public resources, strain the Administrative Court and abuse the service it provides. The court would take vigorous action against legal representatives who failed to comply and would, where appropriate, refer those responsible to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

An urgent application to defer removal was made to the Administrative Court on the afternoon before the scheduled flight. A judge refused it as totally without merit. The Divisional Court subsequently required the responsible solicitor to attend and issued prospective procedural guidance; no appeal from a lower court was involved.