[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Patel, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2483 (Admin) (29 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/2483.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 2483 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		29 September 2010

1. DEPUTY JUDGE: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review following refusal on the papers by Mr John Randall QC, sitting as a deputy judge of this court.
2. The history of the claimant's presence in this country is long and, to an extent, sad. I do not need to go into it in any detail. She succeeded on Article 8 grounds in an appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing her indefinite leave to remain as a bereaved spouse. The appeal was allowed on Article 8 grounds only. The decision was carried into effect by the Secretary of State in a decision of 7 September 2009 granting the claimant discretionary leave to remain outside the immigration rules from that date until 7 September 2012. She is permitted to take a job, to use the National Health Service, Social Services and other services provided by local authorities. She is permitted to travel abroad and to return, subject of course to inquiry on her return to ensure that the leave should not be cancelled.
3. It is perfectly clear that the grant of three years' leave to a claimant who has succeeded in an appeal under Article 8 is entirely in line with Government policies and practices. In other words, the claimant has clearly had all that she is entitled to have as a result of winning her appeal. She is here lawfully now and with leave. She is able to do most of the things that she would be able to do with indefinite leave. She is able to have access to the services that she would have if she had indefinite leave to remain. She is not entitled, as I understand it, to indefinite leave to remain as a result of the AIT's determination.
4. In refusing permission to appeal, Mr Randall indicated that the application had no realistic prospect of success and suggested the possibility of an order against the claimant's legal representatives pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules Part 44.14.
5. Mrs Patel, who appears by herself today with Mr Vasani as assistant, indicates that the result of that threat has been that she finds it difficult to obtain solicitors. She asked, in writing, for the matter to be adjourned in order for her to obtain further legal help. I have read her submissions with care but it appears to me that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging this action. There is simply no basis upon which it can succeed. As I have indicated, the claimant has what she is entitled to. Towards the end of her period of leave she will no doubt be advised to seek a renewal of it. If a renewal is refused she will, as I understand the position, have a right of appeal. For the moment, she has everything that she is entitled to and there is no arguable basis upon which she could challenge the decision to which I have referred. Permission is therefore refused
6. As I indicated at the beginning of this judgment, I will order that a transcript of it be made available to Mrs Patel at public expense.
7. I propose to say nothing more about the possibility of an order under Part 44.
8. MR LEWIS: I was not going to make an application in those terms in the light of the fact that the solicitors are no longer on the record and apparently not supporting this renewal. I was going to make an application for the costs to be paid by the claimant in this case in the sum of £640 which was the sum pleaded in the summary grounds.
9. DEPUTY JUDGE: There is an order to that effect.
10. MR LEWIS: There is, with one amendment. I should point out that the current order is for the sum of £480. There was a slight deduction from the sum that was pleaded in the summary grounds of defence. That was made in respect of the claimant at that point in time. It is not a substantial sum.
11. DEPUTY JUDGE: I am not going to make any change to the order made by Mr Randall.
12. MR LEWIS: I am grateful.
13. DEPUTY JUDGE: Mrs Patel, Thank you very much for coming. I am sorry that the result is not what you hoped for but you will at least have this court's views in writing which you can look at.