|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Grace, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1091 (09 June 2014)
Cite as:  1 WLR 3432,  EWCA Civ 1091,  WLR(D) 249,  WLR 3432
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [View ICLR summary:  WLR(D) 249] [Buy ICLR report:  1 WLR 3432] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST
(MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF PAMELA ALBURTHA GRACE
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms C McGahey (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"1. You entered the UK on temporary admission on 22 October 2002. You were required as a condition of your temporary admission to report on 30 October 2002. You did not report but absconded. As an illegal entrant you apparently formed a relationship with a British citizen, knowing full well that you had no right to be in the UK. On 6 November 2012, that is, 10 years after you illegally entered the UK, you applied for leave to remain.
2. You were 41 [that is slightly in error] when you arrived in the UK and you have therefore spent most of your life (including your formative years) in Jamaica. There is no apparent reason why you could not readily reintegrate into the social and cultural life of Jamaica. There is no obvious impediment to your partner, who knew or ought to have known of your precarious immigration position, returning with you.
3. In these circumstances, the decision to refuse you leave to remain is not an arguable interference with any right to private life under Article 8 ECHR."
Underneath that there are two bullet points, the second of which states: "Case is considered to be totally without merit".
"A limited civil restraint order may be made by a judge of any court where a party has made 2 or more applications which are totally without merit."
" ... finding of TWM should not be made unless the claim is so hopeless or misconceived that a civil restraint order would be justified if such applications were persistently made."
This seeks to introduce into the present context the hallmarks of abusiveness or vexatiousness which underlie the civil restraint order jurisprudence. Mr Malik then emphasises the acknowledged potential of oral advocacy to enhance persuasiveness: see Sengupta v Holmes  EWCA Civ 1104 per Laws LJ at paragraph 38.