BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> STARRED SP (Pre-2000 decision: human rights?) (Sri Lanka) [2000] UKIAT 00006 (06 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2000/00006.html Cite as: [2000] UKIAT 00006, [2000] UKIAT 01TH2414, 2002 Imm AR 249, [2000] UKIAT 6, [2000] INLR 447, [2002] Imm AR 249 |
[New search] [Help]
STARRED Pardeepan (Pre-2000 decision: human rights?) (Sri Lanka) [2000] UKIAT 00006
(00/TH/2414)
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Date of hearing: 5/10/2000
Date Determination notified: 6/10/2000
Before
Mr Justice Collins (President)
Mr C M G Ockelton
Mr G Warr
Between
SELVARATNAM PARDEEPAN |
APPELLANT |
and |
|
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT | RESPONDENT |
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
"For the purposes of Article 3 an event takes place when (a) a notice is served (b) a decision is made or taken, (c) directions are given, and (d) a certificate is issued."
In the circumstances of a case such as this it is (b), the making of a decision.
"Section 65 Human Rights Appeals is not to have effect where the decision under the Immigration Acts was taken before 2 October 2000."
We asked Mr Thompson who has appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State whether he could explain the need for those two provisions, and other than a reference to belt and braces he was unable to help us. We should say before going further that we are indeed most grateful both to him and to Mr Walsh who has appeared on behalf of the appellant for their assistance, given the short notice in respect of the point which we are considering now, which is by no means an easy one.
"A person who claims that a public authority has acted or proposes to act in a way which is made unlawful by Section 6(1) may rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings , but only if he is or would be a victim of the unlawful act."
It is quite plain that the appellant, and indeed we would expect any appellant in a similar situation, is likely to be a victim of the unlawful act if there has been one. Legal proceedings include the proceedings before the Tribunal and specifically include by sub-section 6 of section 7 an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal. That has led to a refinement of the argument that an appeal by the Secretary of State to this Tribunal could constitute proceedings instituted by the Secretary of State. The reason for that refinement is to be found in Section 22(4) of the 1998 Act which provides:
"Paragraph (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 7 applies to proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority whenever the Act in question took place, but otherwise that sub-section does not apply to an Act taking place before the coming into force of that section."
MR JUSTICE COLLINS
PRESIDENT