AAA AND OTHERS v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

This is a procedural Divisional Court judgment adjourning the substantive hearing listed for 19 July 2022 because the Secretary of State issued fresh or supplemental decision letters on 5 and 7 July 2022. The court directed that the substantive hearing focus on the most recent decision letters and permitted claimants to amend grounds and file evidence limited to challenge those new decisions by 22 July 2022. It stayed or separated particular issues: trafficking referrals where reasonable grounds or conclusive grounds decisions remain outstanding are to be listed separately, and claims for unlawful detention were stayed pending the Divisional Court hearing and remitted for case management of damages claims. The court balanced the public interest in expedition with fairness to claimants (citing Caroopen v Secretary of State for the Home Department) and set a revised timetable including a five-day hearing beginning 5 September 2022 and a separate two-day hearing for Asylum Aid beginning 10 October 2022. The court granted limited permissions for evidence (including a 25-page UNHCR reply) and varied the earlier directions order of Swift J of 22 June 2022.

Background and nature of claims: The claimants (15 individuals, one trade union and three NGOs) sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging decisions that their asylum claims would be processed in Rwanda and not in the United Kingdom, and they challenged the lawfulness of the arrangements for removal to Rwanda.

Procedural posture: The claims were listed to be heard beginning 19 July 2022 after directions made by Swift J on 22 June 2022. The Secretary of State issued further or supplemental inadmissibility and related decisions on 5 and 7 July 2022, prompting an application to adjourn so claimants could respond to the new decisions.

Issues before the court: (i) whether to adjourn the 19 July hearing and, if so, to what date; (ii) whether to include at that hearing claims arising from trafficking referrals and claims for damages for alleged unlawful detention; (iii) the length of the hearing; and (iv) ancillary matters including amendments to grounds, service of further evidence and skeleton arguments, bundle preparation, and permission for intervening evidence.

Court's reasoning and decisions: The court decided to adjourn the 19 July hearing to enable fairness in respect of new decision letters and to focus on the latest decisions rather than superseded material. The court held that claimants should be permitted to file amended grounds and evidence limited to the new decisions by 22 July 2022 and that the defendant may respond by 29 July 2022. It excluded from the September hearing two claimants whose trafficking referrals were pending and directed those claims to be case managed after a final referral decision; other trafficking-related issues in three cases were to be confined to specified grounds and included in the September hearing. Detention claims were stayed for the Divisional Court and remitted for case management of damages within 14 days. The court set the substantive hearing to begin on 5 September 2022 for a five-day estimate and listed Asylum Aid separately for two days beginning 10 October 2022. The UNHCR intervener was granted permission to file up to 25 pages of reply evidence limited to responding to the Secretary of State's evidence dealing with the UNHCR material, to be filed by 27 July 2022. The court set deadlines for applications for disclosure, permission to cross-examine, and expert evidence (by 22 July 2022) and varied multiple dates in the Swift J order of 22 June 2022 to implement the revised timetable.

The court ordered that the hearing fixed for 19 July 2022 be adjourned. The Divisional Court directed that the substantive hearing be listed to begin on 5 September 2022 for five days, with the separate Asylum Aid hearing listed for 10 October 2022 for two days. Two claimants with pending trafficking referrals were removed from the September hearing and to be case managed after final referral decisions; detention-related claims were stayed pending this Divisional Court hearing and remitted for later case management on damages. The court granted limited permissions to amend grounds and adduce specified evidence and varied the earlier directions of Swift J. Rationale: fairness required time for claimants to address the Secretary of State’s new decision letters while balancing the strong public interest in expedition; the court emphasised focusing on the latest decisions, the need to avoid unfairness, and efficient case management.