WW (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A renewed application for permission to appeal must satisfy the second appeals test. It is insufficient that the proposed appeal may raise arguable errors or that the legal framing is novel. Where the case turns on its particular facts, concerns about the public interest, deportation of foreign criminals and confidence in the immigration system do not, without more, establish some other compelling reason for an appeal. The court may refuse permission where there is no obvious injustice and the lower tribunals addressed the relevant principles and applied them to the facts.

The Secretary of State renewed an oral application for permission to appeal in an immigration case from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The Secretary of State had lost below and sought to rely on the second appeals test, particularly the limb requiring some other compelling reason. The respondent did not attend or appear. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or otherwise disclosed a compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.

1. Application refused. The renewed application did not satisfy the second appeals test.
2. The Secretary of State accepted that the proposed appeal did not raise an important point of principle or practice. The court agreed with Burnett LJ’s refusal of permission on the papers on that issue.
3. The proposed reframing of the issues and the fact that the case might be the first to address them in that precise form did not, singly or cumulatively, provide some other compelling reason. The Secretary of State bore a substantial share of responsibility for the case not having been argued below in the manner now proposed.
4. The public interest in deporting foreign criminals in appropriate cases and maintaining confidence in the immigration system did not overcome the absence of a compelling reason. The court rejected the suggestion that the public interest had been subordinated to private interests.
5. The case turned on its particular facts. Although there might be arguable grounds for alleging errors below, there was no obvious injustice. The tribunals had referred to the relevant principles and applied them to the facts. The Court of Appeal therefore refused permission and dismissed the application.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Lord Justice Sales refused the renewed oral application for permission to appeal and ordered: “Application refused”.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — The Secretary of State had lost in the underlying immigration proceedings. The judgment gives no further citation or details of that decision.