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

Unreasonable administrative delay may be unlawful where it is excessive, causes particular detriment, and is not justified by an adequate explanation. A public authority responding to judicial review must provide the facts, chronology and underlying reasons for its conduct. Where it provides no proper explanation, the court may infer that no good explanation exists. The court must not grant relief merely to punish or censure administrative failings. A claim based on delay may nevertheless succeed where the delay is manifestly unreasonable or causes particular detriment that the authority has failed to alleviate.

The claimant had been granted limited leave to remain as a refugee and applied for indefinite leave to remain. After more than two and a half years, the application remained undecided. She brought judicial review proceedings alleging unlawful delay and contending that the delay affected her ability to reunite with her husband in the United Kingdom.

The defendant repeatedly sought extensions, failed initially to provide adequate grounds, and supplied no witness statement, documentary evidence or reliable chronology explaining the delay. The court therefore considered whether the delay was unlawful and whether the unresolved circumstances concerning the claimant’s husband established a breach of Article 8.

1. Unlawful delay. The claim succeeded on the delay ground. Delay claims will rarely succeed, but may do so where the delay is manifestly unreasonable or where the claimant suffers particular detriment which the Home Office has failed to alleviate. The court accepted the principles stated in FH and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 157 and HB Ethiopia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1713.
2. The delay was prima facie excessive. The application had remained unresolved for approximately two and a half years, and the defendant had offered no explanation of the relevant chronology or the reasons for the delay. In those circumstances the court was entitled to infer that there was no good explanation.
3. The defendant’s failure to provide facts, reasons, evidence and a timeline breached the duty of candour applicable to public authorities in judicial review, as explained in ex parte Huddlestone. The failure could prejudice the defendant’s case and undermine the public interest in lawful and properly explained administration.
4. The court was not deciding the merits of the claimant’s application for indefinite leave to remain, or the original grant of refugee status. Relief was granted because the delay was excessive and unexplained, not as punishment for administrative failures.
5. The Article 8 issue was adjourned. The material before the court was contradictory as to whether the claimant’s husband could enter the United Kingdom and whether any continuing separation resulted from the delay. The defendant had not explained its position or provided evidence sufficient for the court to determine that issue.

The court upheld the judicial review claim, was minded to grant a declaration of unlawfulness and was minded to require the application to be dealt with within a reasonable timeframe. The Article 8 claim was adjourned for further clarification.

This was a first-instance judicial review. The judgment records that permission had been granted and directions had been made requiring the defendant to file grounds of resistance and evidence. The court upheld the claim on unlawful delay and adjourned the Article 8 issue.