The Secretary of State for the Home Department v The Special Immigration Appeals Commission & Ors

On a review under sections 2C or 2D of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, the Secretary of State must disclose under Rule 10B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 the material used by the author of a relevant report to establish or justify its stated facts or conclusions.

If the decision under review is later re-analysed, disclosure must instead cover material existing when that decision was made and considered sufficient by the Secretary of State to justify the relevant facts and conclusions. The declaration concerns Rule 10B and does not determine disclosure obligations arising directly under sections 2C and 2D.

The Secretary of State applied to the Administrative Court concerning the terms of the order that should reflect open and closed decisions handed down on 18 March 2015. The dispute concerned the scope of disclosure required in proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, particularly the relationship between Rule 10B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 and reviews under sections 2C and 2D of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.

The court was required to formulate the declaration accurately and to determine the associated costs position.

1. Declaration. The court declared that, on a review under section 2C or section 2D of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, the Secretary of State is required by Rule 10B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 to disclose the material identified as having been used by the author of any relevant report to establish or justify the facts or conclusions expressed in that report.
2. Re-analysis of the decision. Where the decision under review is subsequently re-analysed, the required disclosure is of material that existed at the date of the decision under review and which the Secretary of State considers sufficient to justify the relevant facts and conclusions.
3. Scope. The reference to Rule 10B makes clear that the declaration is not an order engaged by Rule 4(3) or by the duty of candour. The ruling does not address disclosure obligations arising under sections 2C and 2D themselves.
4. Costs. The Secretary of State did not succeed in her broad submission. The court rejected the submission that the declaration did not affect the substance of the Commission’s decision. There was no order for costs, save for assessment of the publicly funded costs of the legally aided interested parties.

The judgment was given to resolve a disagreement about the terms of the order reflecting open and closed decisions handed down on 18 March 2015. No appellate history is stated.