BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Bugdaycay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1986] UKHL 3 (19 February 1986)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1986/3.html
Cite as: [1987] AC 514, [1986] UKHL 3

[New search] [Context] [Printable version] [Buy ICLR report: [1987] AC 514] [Help]


JISCBAILII_CASE_IMMIGRATION
JISCBAILII_CASE_CONSTITUTIONAL

    Parliamentary Archives,
    HL/PO/JU/18/247

    Bugdaycay (A.P.) (Appellant)

    v.
    Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

    Nelidow-Santis (A.P.) (Appellant)

    v.
    Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

    Norman (A.P) (Appellant)

    v.
    Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

    [Consolidated Appeals]

    JUDGMENT

    Die Jovis 19° Februarii 1987

    Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was
    referred the Cause Bugdaycay (A.P.) against Secretary of State
    for the Home Department, Nelidow-Santis (A.P.) against
    Secretary of State for the Home Department, Norman (A.P.)
    against Secretary of State for the Home Department* That the
    Committee had heard Counsel on Monday the 10th, Tuesday the
    11th and Thursday the 13th days of November 1986 upon the
    Petitions and Appeals of Huseyin Bugdaycay, of 14 Highbury New
    Park, London N5, Michael Nelidow-Santis, of 69 Arlington
    Lodge, Baytree Road, Brixton Hill, London SW2, and Daniel
    Tawiah Norman, of 77 Bucks Road, Harlesden, London NW10,
    praying that the matter of the Orders set forth in the
    Schedules thereto, namely Orders of Her Majesty's Court of
    Appeal of 5th November 1985, might be reviewed before Her
    Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament and that the said
    Orders might be reversed, varied or altered or that the
    Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to
    Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem
    meet (which said Appeals were by an Order of the House of
    22nd May 1986 consolidated); as upon the Case of the Secretary
    of State for the Home Department lodged in answer to the said
    Appeals; and due consideration had this day of what was
    offered on either side in this Cause:

    It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and
    Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen
    assembled, That the said Orders of Her Majesty's Court of
    Appeal (Civil Division) of 5th November 1985 complained of in
    the said Appeals be, and the same are hereby, Affirmed and
    that the said Petitions and Appeals be, and the same are
    hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That
    the costs of the Appellants be taxed in accordance with
    Schedule 2 to the Legal Aid Act 1974.

    Cler: Parliamentor:

    Judgment; 19.2.87
    HOUSE OP LORDS

    BUGDACAY (A.P.)
    (APPELLANT)

    v.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

    (RESPONDENT)

    NELIDOW-SANTIS (A.P.)
    (APPELLANT)


    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

    (RESPONDENT)

    NORMAN (A.P.)
    (APPELLANT)

    v.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

    (RESPONDENT)

    CONSOLIDATED APPEALS

    IN RE MUSISI (A.P.)

    Lord Bridge of Harwich
    Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
    Lord Templeman
    Lord Griffiths
    Lord Goff of Chieveley


    LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH

    My Lords,

    These four appeals were heard together by consent of all
    parties. All are concerned with questions as to the treatment in
    domestic law of those who claim to be refugees under the Geneva
    Convention (1951) and Protocol (1957) relating to the Status of
    Refugees ("the Convention"). The background material in the
    Immigration Act 1971 ("the Act"), the rules made thereunder and
    the Convention itself is common to all four appeals. The issues
    which arise in the first three appeals are identical. The issues
    raised in the appeal of Musisi overlap to some extent with the
    issues in the first three appeals. The appeal of Musisi, however,
    raises difficult and entirely distinct issues which will require
    examination in some detail of the facts peculiar to that case. At

    - 1 -

    the outset it will be convenient to give a brief outline of the
    facts so far as necessary for the proper examination of the
    common issues.

    The first three appellants separately obtained leave to enter
    the United Kingdom under the Act. Bugdaycay was granted leave
    to enter as a student, Santis as a holiday visitor, Norman as a
    business visitor. In due course each claimed to be entitled to
    asylum in this country as a refugee from his country of origin.
    The claim in the case of Santis was made before the expiry of his
    temporary leave to enter, but the other two only made their
    claims after the expiry of their leave to enter and after they had
    been arrested as overstayers. The Secretary of State refused each
    of the claims to asylum and directions were given in each case for
    the removal of the appellant as an illegal entrant pursuant to
    paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Act. Each applied for judicial
    review. The applications of Bugdaycay and Santis were refused by
    Taylor J., that of Norman by Woolf J. Their appeals were heard
    together by the Court of Appeal (Oliver, Neill and Balcombe L.JJ)
    and dismissed. A fuller account of the facts which I have very
    briefly summarised will be found in the judgment of Neill L.J.
    [1986] 1 W.L.R. 155, 157-158. The appellants now appeal by leave
    of your Lordships' House.

    The appellant Musisi applied for leave to enter as a visitor
    from Kenya. Pending a decision upon that application he was
    temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom pursuant to paragraph
    21 of Schedule 2 to the Act. His application for leave to enter
    was refused, but he thereupon immediately applied for asylum as a
    refugee from Uganda. His temporary admission was extended
    indefinitely pending consideration of that application. I shall later
    have to examine the history of his case in detail but at this stage
    it suffices to say that a final decision was made refusing him
    leave to enter and directions were given for his removal and
    return to Kenya in January 1984. His application for judicial
    review was refused by Mann J. and his appeal against that refusal
    was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Watkins, Purchas and Dillon
    L.JJ). He too now appeals by leave of your Lordships' House.

    This is the first time your Lordships' House has had to
    consider the Convention. The questions arising from its impact on
    domestic law are of undoubted importance both to those claiming
    refugee status and to the authorities responsible for the operation
    of the system for the control of immigration established by the
    Act and rules made thereunder.

    The relevant definition of "refugee" in the Convention is
    "any person who . . . owing to well-founded fear of being
    persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of
    a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country
    of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling
    to avail himself of the protection of that country." The provisions
    in the Convention of primary importance are the following:

    "Article 32

    1. The contracting states shall not expel a refugee lawfully
    in their territory save on grounds of national security or
    public order."

    - 2 -

    "Article 33

    1. No contracting state shall expel or return ('refouler') a
    refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of
    territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on
    account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
    particular social group or political opinion."

    The relevant rules laid down by the Secretary of State
    pursuant to section 3(2) of the Act "as to the practice to be
    followed in the administration of this Act for regulating the entry
    into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons required by this
    Act to have leave to enter" are found in the Statement of
    Changes in Immigration Rules (1983) (HC169). The rules are
    divided into two sections: Section One, Control on Entry; Section
    Two, Control after Entry. Paragraph 16 in Section One and
    paragraph 96 in Section Two, each headed "Refugees," are in
    identical terms as follows:

    "Where a person is a refugee full account is to be taken of
    the provisions of the Convention and Protocol relating to
    the Status of Refugees (Cmd. 9171 and Cmnd. 3096).
    Nothing in these rules is to be construed as requiring action
    contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under these
    instruments."

    The paragraphs headed "Asylum" in Sections One and Two
    are respectively paragraphs 73 and 134 and provide as follows:

    "73. Special considerations arise where the only country to
    which a person could be removed is one to which he is
    unwilling to go owing to well-founded fear of being
    persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
    membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
    Any case in which it appears to the immigration officer as
    a result of a claim or information given by the person
    seeking entry at a port that he might fall within the terms
    of this provision is to be referred to the Home Office for
    decision regardless of any grounds set out in any provision
    of these rules which may appear to justify refusal of leave
    to enter. Leave to enter will not be refused if removal
    would be contrary to the provisions of the Convention and
    Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.

    134. A person may apply for asylum in the United Kingdom
    on the ground that, if he were required to leave, he would
    have to go to a country to which he is unwilling to go
    owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons
    of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
    social group or political opinion. Any such claim is to be
    carefully considered in the light of ail the relevant
    circumstances."

    The primary submission made on behalf of the first three
    appellants is that the immigration rules prohibit their removal and
    return to their own countries whence they came unless and until
    the courts have adjudicated upon and rejected their claim to be
    refugees from those countries. The argument proceeds by stages.
    Each claims to be a refugee from the country of his nationality.

    - 3 -

    To return him to that country, therefore, would contravene Article
    33.1 of the Convention. Paragraph 73 of HC169 prohibits removal
    contrary to the provisions of the Convention. It follows, so it is
    said, that the Secretary of State cannot give himself power to
    make a decision leading to a person's removal contrary to the
    rules by finding as a fact that he is not a refugee, if in truth he
    is. The conclusion, it is submitted, is that, if the Secretary of
    State has purported to make such a decision, the court, on an
    application for judicial review, is not confined to considering
    whether there was evidence to support the decision of the
    Secretary of State, but must examine the evidence and make its
    own decision. Only if the court is satisfied on a balance of
    probabilities that the person claiming asylum is not a refugee, can
    the decision to remove him to his country of origin be affirmed.

    This line of reasoning is said to be supported by analogy by
    the decision in Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home
    Department, Ex parte Khawaja
    [1984] AC 74 that when directions
    given pursuant to paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Act for the
    removal of an illegal entrant are challenged on an application for
    judicial review, it is for the immigration officer or the Secretary
    of State, as the case may be, to establish the fact of illegal
    entry.

    The reason why this argument cannot be sustained is that
    all questions of fact on which the discretionary decision whether
    to grant or withhold leave to enter or remain depends must
    necessarily be determined by the immigration officer or the
    Secretary of State in the exercise of the discretion which is
    exclusively conferred upon them by section 4(1) of the Act. The
    question whether an applicant for leave to enter or remain is or is
    not a refugee is only one, even if a particularly important one
    required by paragraph 73 of HC169 to be referred to the Home
    Office, of a multiplicity of questions which immigration officers
    and officials of the Home Office acting for the Secretary of State
    must daily determine in dealing with applications for leave to
    enter or remain in accordance with the rules, as, for example,
    whether an applicant is a bona fide visitor, student, businessman,
    dependant etc. Determination of such questions is only open to
    challenge in the courts on well known Wednesbury principles.
    There is no ground for treating the question raised by a claim to
    refugee status as an exception to this rule. For the reasons
    explained at length in the speeches in the case of Khawaja the
    court's fundamentally different approach to an order for removal
    on the ground of illegal entry is dictated by the terms of the
    statute itself, since the power to direct removal under paragraph 9
    of Schedule 2 is only available in the case of a person who is in
    fact an "illegal entrant."

    All four appellants next submit that before their claims to
    asylum as refugees can be finally refused and before they can be
    required to leave this country they are entitled, by one route or
    another, to appeal to the appellate authorities under Part II of the
    Act. Section 13(1) gives a right of appeal to an applicant against
    refusal of leave to enter, but section 13 prevents its exercise,
    subject to exceptions not presently relevant, so long as the
    intending appellant is in the United Kingdom. Section 14(1) gives
    a right of appeal to a person who has a limited leave to enter or
    remain against refusal to vary that leave. Section 15 gives a

    - 4 -

    right of appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State to
    make a deportation order. Section 17 gives a right of appeal
    against directions for a person's removal to a particular country on
    the ground that "he ought to be removed (if at all) to a different
    country or territory specified by him." At one time Mr. Collins,
    for Musisi, presented an ingenious argument that section 17 gives
    to a person claiming asylum who objects to removal to the country
    named in the directions appealed against, but can specify no other,
    an effective opportunity to appeal while still in the United
    Kingdom even though he has been refused leave to enter. A
    careful reading of section 17(5), however, shows, as Mr. Collins in
    due course accepted, that, in the case of a person refused leave
    to enter, an appeal against removal directions lies only in three
    exceptional cases, none of which is applicable to Musisi.

    A further argument advanced in the written case for Musisi,
    of which Mr. Collins was not the author, but which he did not feel
    he could properly abandon, was that the necessary reference to the
    Home Office for decision pursuant to paragraph 73 of HC169 of a
    claim to asylum should be taken as the grant, by implication, of
    temporary leave to enter, giving the person claiming asylum a
    right of appeal under section 14(1) against a refusal to extend that
    leave. This is, however, wholly inconsistent with the language of
    the concluding sentence of paragraph 73: "Leave to enter will not
    be refused etc."

    The main argument on this aspect of the case was advanced
    on behalf of the first three appellants by Mr. Beloff. He draws
    attention to Article 35 of the Convention, whereby "contracting
    states undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United
    Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ... in the exercise of
    its functions." The Office of the United Nations High
    Commissioner for Refugees (U.N.H.C.R.) published in 1979 a
    "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee
    Status." From paragraph 192 of that publication we learn that in
    1977 the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's
    Programme recommended that the procedures to be adopted by
    states adhering to the Convention for determination of applications
    for refugee status should satisfy certain basic requirements. The
    relevant recommendations read as follows:

    "(iii) There should be a clearly identified authority -
    wherever possible a single central authority - with
    responsibility for examining requests for refugee status and
    taking a decision in the first instance.

    (vi) If the applicant is not recognised, he should be given
    a reasonable time to appeal for a formal reconsideration of
    the decision, either to the same or to a different authority,
    whether administrative or judicial, according to the
    prevailing system.

    (vii) The applicant should be permitted to remain in the
    country pending a decision on his initial request by the
    competent authority referred to in paragraph (iii) above,
    unless it has been established by that authority that his
    request is clearly abusive. He should also be permitted to
    remain in the country while an appeal to a higher
    administrative authority or to the courts is pending."

    - 5 -

    It is submitted that the basic requirements set out in
    paragraphs (vi) and (vii) can only be satisfied if an unsuccessful
    applicant is accorded a right of "appeal . . . according to the
    prevailing system," which in the United Kingdom must mean an
    appeal to the appellate authorities under Part II of the Act,
    exercisable before he is required to leave the country. Removal
    of the appellants as illegal entrants would deprive them of any
    such right of appeal. On the other hand the alternative course of
    making deportation orders in the case of Bugdaycay and Norman
    and simply refusing to extend leave to remain in the case of
    Santis, would have opened an avenue of appeal in each case in
    which the decision of the Secretary of State could have been
    challenged. In deciding to proceed against them as illegal entrants
    and neglecting the alternative, the Secretary of State, it is
    submitted, must have failed to have regard to the
    recommendations of the Executive Committee of the High
    Commissioner's Programme.

    My Lords, there was some discussion in the courts below of
    the question whether the practice of the Home Office complied
    with recommendation (vi). I express no opinion on that question,
    since it is, as it seems to me, neither necessary nor desirable that
    this House should attempt to interpret an instrument of this
    character which is of no binding force either in municipal or
    international law.

    The fact that the first three appellants are proposed to be
    removed summarily as illegal entrants obscures the true implication
    of the argument advanced by Mr. Beloff on their behalf. If the
    effect of the 1977 recommendations were to require the Secretary
    of State to treat every applicant for refugee status in such a way
    as to enable the application, if initially unsuccessful, to be tested
    by way of an appeal under Part II of the Act while the appellant
    remained in the United Kingdom, this would apply not only to
    those who had secured entry illegally, but to every applicant for
    refugee status who, on arrival in this country, was refused leave
    to enter. The result would then be that the Secretary of State's
    duty to act in conformity with the obligation of the United
    Kingdom under the Convention to co-operate with the Office of
    the U.N.H.C.R. and to have regard to the recommendations made
    by the Executive Committee in 1977 would override the express
    terms of section 13(3) of the Act, which prohibits an appeal
    against refusal of leave to enter so long as the intending appellant
    is in the United Kingdom. This is plainly untenable. It is equally
    plain that a person who has secured entry illegally can be in no
    better position in this regard than a person refused leave to enter.
    Mr. Beloff's argument must therefore be rejected.

    The first three appellants finally challenge the decision to
    remove them summarily by direction under paragraph 9 of Schedule
    2 on the ground that they are not illegal entrants. It is common
    ground that each committed an offence under section 26(l)(c) by
    misrepresenting to an immigration officer on arrival in this country
    the true nature and purpose of his visit. It is submitted, however,
    that the misrepresentations were not material, since the appellants
    would not necessarily have been refused leave to enter if they had
    originally claimed to enter as refugees.

    - 6 -

    After setting out the argument and the citations from
    authority on which this submission relies for support, Neill L.J.
    disposed of it in the following paragraphs, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 155,
    160-161:

    "In my judgment it is impermissible to extend the concept
    of material facts so as to allow an intending entrant to
    seek leave to enter for a particular purpose on the basis of
    a statement of particular facts and then later, on admitting
    that the purpose had been misrepresented and the facts had
    been misstated, to contend he was not an illegal entrant
    because if he had told a different story and had put forward
    a different reason for his visit he might well have been
    given leave.

    The question whether facts are material or decisive has to
    be answered in the context of the leave which was in fact
    given. The Act of 1971 makes this clear. Thus the
    appellants were seeking to enter the United Kingdom by
    making statements or making representations to the
    immigration officers which they knew to be false or did not
    believe to be true. The misstatements or misrepresentations
    were not on matters of detail but constituted versions of
    the appellants' intentions which were in fundamental
    respects at variance with the truth. The decisions that
    these appellants were illegal entrants appears to me to be
    unassailable."

    I cannot improve on this reasoning with which I agree and which I
    gratefully adopt.

    I would, therefore, dismiss the first three appeals.

    The case of Musisi raises first a distinct issue of law. The
    decision to refuse him leave to enter was not based on the denial
    of his claim to refugee status quoad Uganda, which is the country
    of his nationality, but on a conclusion by the Secretary of State
    that, even if he is properly to be treated as a refugee from
    Uganda, within the definition of "refugee" under the Convention,
    this presents no obstacle to his return to Kenya whence he came
    to this country. The primary submission made by Mr. Collins on
    his behalf is that, if he is a refugee, as is to be assumed, he is
    protected not only by Article 33.1 of the Convention against
    return to the country where he fears persecution, but also by
    Article 32.1 against return to any other country because he is now
    "lawfully in [the] territory" of the United Kingdom and cannot,
    therefore, be expelled save on grounds of national security or
    public order. The temporary admission pursuant to paragraph 21
    of Schedule 2 to the Act of an applicant for leave to enter
    pending a decision on his application has the effect, it is
    submitted, of making the applicant's presence in the United
    Kingdom lawful for the purpose of his entitlement to the
    protection of Article 32.1 of the Convention.

    Section 11(1) of the Act provides:

    "A person arriving in the United Kingdom by ship or aircraft
    shall for purposes of this Act be deemed not to enter the
    United Kingdom unless and until he disembarks, and on

    - 7 -

    disembarkation at a port shall further be deemed not to
    enter the United Kingdom so long as he remains in such
    area (if any) at the port as may be approved for this
    purpose by an immigration officer; and a person who has not
    otherwise entered the United Kingdom shall be deemed not
    to do so as long as he is detained, or temporarily admitted
    or released while liable to detention, under the powers
    conferred by Schedule 2 to this Act."

    *

    Mr. Collins was constrained to concede that, if his argument
    is right, it must apply equally to any person arriving in this
    country at a regular port of entry and presenting himself to the
    immigration authorities, whether he is detained or temporarily
    admitted pending a decision on his application for leave to enter.
    It follows that the effect of the submission, if it is well-founded,
    is to confer on any person who can establish that he has the
    status of a refugee from the country of his nationality, but who
    arrives in the United Kingdom from a third country, an
    indefeasible right to remain here, since to refuse him leave to
    enter and direct his return to the third country will involve the
    United Kingdom in the expulsion of "a refugee lawfully in their
    territory" contrary to Article 32.1.

    The United Kingdom was already a party to the Convention
    when the Act was passed and it would, to my mind, be very
    surprising if it had the effect contended for. But I am satisfied
    that the deeming provision enacted by section 11(1) makes Mr.
    Collin's submission on this point quite untenable.

    My Lords, I now turn to the most difficult issue, which
    arises from the unusual facts in the case of Musisi. The question
    is whether there is any available ground on which the discretionary
    administrative decision to remove the appellant to Kenya can
    properly be challenged in judicial review proceedings. Not the
    least surprising feature of the case is that this question was raised
    for the first time in your Lordships' House. The different counsel
    who appeared for the appellant in the courts below advanced only
    a single argument which has now been abandoned, but,
    furthermore, the very experienced counsel appearing before Mann
    J. expressly disclaimed any challenge to the decision of the
    Secretary of State on Wednesbury principles. Nevertheless, a
    detailed examination of the way in which the application made by
    the appellant for asylum was dealt with by the immigration
    authorities gives cause for grave concern.

    The appellant Musisi arrived at Heathrow airport on a flight
    from Nairobi on 23 January 1983. He sought leave to enter the
    United Kingdom for the purpose of visiting his two half sisters,
    both now settled in the United Kingdom and one of whom was his
    sponsor. He and his sponsor were both interviewed by an
    immigration officer on the day of his arrival. There were
    discrepancies in what they told the officer, who was not satisfied
    and decided to make further enquiries. The appellant was granted
    temporary admission until 26 January. On that day he was again
    interviewed by another immigration officer and the decision was
    then taken to refuse him leave to enter as a visitor. His
    temporary admission was extended to the following day when he
    was to be removed by the airline with which he had arrived.

    - 8 -

    On the morning of 27 January, however, a claim by the
    appellant to political asylum as a refugee from Uganda was
    communicated to the Home Office on his behalf by the United
    Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service. This resulted in a further
    extension of the appellant's temporary admission "pending further
    consideration of your case" which remains in operation to this day.

    Nothing, I think, now turns on any inaccuracies or
    discrepancies in the account which the appellant gave of himself
    when posing as an intending visitor, save that his omission to
    claim political asylum in the first instance has naturally
    engendered a degree of scepticism about the claim. But the
    appellant has always put forward the explanation that he had been
    advised to try to gain entry as a visitor and then to seek asylum
    through the "refugee office" in London, which seems not to be
    wholly implausible and which, so far as the evidence shows, has
    not been rejected by the Home Office as untrue.

    On 27 January 1983 the appellant was interviewed in
    connection with his claim to asylum by an immigration officer at
    Heathrow. This was an interview of first importance, since it was
    the only occasion in these protracted proceedings when the
    appellant was ever questioned face to face by an official acting on
    behalf of the Secretary of State. The immigration officer gives
    an account of this interview in an affidavit sworn in the
    proceedings and also exhibits his contemporary notes in a document
    entitled "Political Asylum Interview Questionnaire." I shall
    endeavour to extract from these discursive documents a summary
    of the relevant factual information presented by the appellant. He
    was born on 30 June 1960. He was educated in Uganda until
    1973. In 1973 his father fled from Uganda to Kenya, but was
    arrested there and returned to Uganda. He was never seen again
    and was believed to have been murdered by the Ugandan Secret
    Police. The appellant and his mother were in Kenya from 1974 to
    1979 where the appellant continued his schooling. They both
    returned to Uganda in 1979. The mother left in 1980 to return to
    Kenya once more where she has since remained. Other siblings
    are also in Kenya. The appellant's two half sisters, now in
    England, had been harassed by soldiers in Uganda. I interpolate
    that, according to the appellant's own affidavit, he was in 1982
    living in Uganda with an aunt and two cousins. At about this
    time he told the immigration officer that he was himself accused
    of being a guerilla and beaten up. One of his cousins was
    arrested and taken to a barracks where he died of injuries
    inflicted on him. Before he died he gave the authorities
    particulars of his friends and relatives including the appellant. His
    other cousin had since been arrested and killed. The appellant
    feared the same fate awaited him in Uganda if he returned. The
    appellant last left Uganda in June 1982. He claimed that he had
    applied or attempted to apply for political asylum in Kenya but
    had been unsuccessful. His temporary permit to remain in Kenya
    would expire on 5 March 1983.

    In his contemporary note of the interview with the appellant
    the immigration officer writes:

    "The passenger is an educated, intelligent, plausible
    individual who comes from the upper strata of Ugandan
    society. He would have me believe that Uganda is still a

    - 9 -

    turbulent and violent country and should he return there he
    feels his life would be in danger. Significantly he did not
    claim political asylum upon his arrival in the U.K. but
    sought to pass himself off as a bona fide visitor who was
    coming for a three week visit to see his sisters."

    In the final paragraph he concludes:

    "The passenger appeared in good health, was alert and
    confident at interview. My feelings are that he is moving
    away from Uganda because a better life awaits him
    somewhere else. Perhaps our people in Kampala can give a
    report on the current political, social and law and order
    position at present pertaining in Uganda."

    In his affidavit sworn 18 months later the immigration officer
    expresses his conclusion differently in the following paragraph:

    "I formed the view that the applicant, who appeared to be
    in good health, was alert and confident at interview, was
    moving away from Uganda because a better life awaited him
    somewhere else and that this was not a genuine application
    for asylum."

    I find it strange that such an important interview as this
    should be entrusted to an immigration officer at the port of entry
    with no knowledge of conditions in the country of origin of a
    claimant for asylum. It seems even stranger that having suggested
    that local conditions should be investigated, presumably with the
    object of assessing the background to the claim for asylum, the
    interviewer should later assert that he was in a position to, and
    did, reject it as not being genuine. Fortunately this view has
    never been adopted by the Home Office as the basis for a decision
    on the appellant's application for leave to enter. The department
    has, in effect, been content to leave open and undecided the
    question whether the appellant is a bona fide "refugee" as defined
    in the Convention. But it does little to inspire confidence in the
    procedure that the Home Office should have based their further
    consideration of the case on the immigration officer's report.

    The next stage in the consideration of the application for
    leave to enter is explained in the main affidavit sworn on behalf
    of the Secretary of State by Mr. McDowall, a Senior Principal in
    the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office.
    Two long paragraphs of his affidavit examine in minute detail
    various aspects of the appellant's account as reported by the
    immigration officer casting inferential doubts on various aspects of
    that account, in particular the appellant's assertion that he had
    applied for and been refused political asylum in Kenya. The
    conclusion reached at this stage is expressed in the affidavit as
    follows:

    considering the above mentioned matters due regard was
    had to the problem of harassment and intimidation which
    the applicant and his family had experienced in Uganda, but
    it was considered to be of significance that the applicant
    had spent six out of eight years during the period 1974-1982
    in Kenya where his mother, a brother and two sisters reside
    and where he had been living for the six months

    - 10 -

    immediately prior to his departure for the United Kingdom.
    In these circumstances it was concluded that the applicant
    had come to the United Kingdom from a safe country and
    that were he to be refused entry then he would not be
    required to go to Uganda but could return to Kenya instead
    and his application for asylum in this country was therefore
    refused."

    The formal refusal of the application for asylum and directions for
    the appellant's removal to Kenya were communicated to the
    appellant on 12 March 1983. Before these directions were acted
    on Mr. John Tilley M.P. intervened on the appellant's behalf
    writing to the Minister of State and enclosing a long statement by
    the appellant amplifying in considerable detail the account he had
    given of the persecution of his family in Uganda and of the
    difficulties he had encountered in seeking to establish a basis on
    which to remain in Kenya. The Minister of State, in his reply
    dated 8 July 1983, summarised the history and expressed his
    conclusion, confirming the decision to refuse the appellant leave to
    enter, in the phrases I have already quoted from the affidavit of
    Mr. McDowall that the appellant had come from "a safe country"
    and "would not be required to go to Uganda but could return to
    Kenya instead." Fresh directions for the appellant's removal on 21
    July were issued but again were not acted on.

    This time the appellant's case was taken up by Mr. Stuart
    Holland M.P., who wrote to the Minister of State on 9 August
    1983, enclosing a letter dated 30 July from a Mr. Anthony Rose of
    the Stockwell and Clapham Law Centre who was now acting for
    the appellant. Mr. Rose wrote:

    "The Home Office's decision to remove Herbert Musisi to
    Kenya appears to ignore the fact that Mr. Musisi will not
    be allowed to enter Kenya and will almost certainly be
    immediately removed to Uganda where he has a well-
    founded fear that he will be deliberately killed.

    This is because the situation in Kenya has changed
    drastically since the troubles last year as a result of which
    their immigration control has been considerably tightened up.

    I in fact spoke on the telephone on Tuesday to the First
    Secretary of the Kenyan High Commission who confirmed
    that Mr. Musisi could only be given leave to enter Kenya if
    he possessed a work permit (obtainable only in similar
    circumstances to a work permit for the U.K.) or a student
    visa in which case he would have to have been accepted by
    an appropriate educational institution for a course of study
    which he has paid for.

    She further confirmed that if Mr. Musisi were to arrive in
    Kenya without permission to enter he would be removed to
    Uganda."

    In his reply, dated 5 October 1983, the Minister of State
    comments on this letter as follows:

    "The enclosed letter suggests that Mr. Musisi might be in
    danger of being refused entry on his arrival back in Kenya

    - 11 -

    and removed at once to Uganda, but given his residential
    and family ties with Kenya and the fact that Kenya is a
    signatory to the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the
    Status of Refugees and would not knowingly remove a
    Ugandan citizen to Uganda if there was reason to believe he
    would be persecuted there, summary removal to Uganda
    strikes me as unlikely in the circumstances."

    The Minister of State's letter goes on to suggest that the

    appellant should enlist the assistance through the London

    representative of the U.N.H.C.R. of the Nairobi office of that
    organisation.

    Mr. Rose acted on this suggestion and in further lengthy
    correspondence, which was submitted to the Minister of State by
    Mr. Stuart Holland M.P., set out what he had been told by
    representatives of the U.N.H.C.R. which he regarded as the
    reverse of reassuring. In his final reply, dated 13 January 1984,
    the Minister of State contented himself by saying that he did not
    "accept Mr. Rose's pessimistic interpretation of the advice given
    by U.N.H.C.R." He confirmed his previous decisions. Notice was
    given to the appellant, dated 16 January 1984, directing his
    removal to Kenya by a flight leaving on 19 January 1984.
    Presumably notice to the Home Office of an intention to apply for
    judicial review prevented the implementation of these directions.
    Leave to apply for judicial review in these proceedings was
    granted on 1 February 1984.

    Following the passage to which I have earlier referred, the
    affidavit of Mr. McDowall gives a short account of the exchanges
    between the Members of Parliament who intervened on the
    appellant's behalf and the Minister of State, and concludes as
    follows:

    "It is international practice that where foreign nationals
    embark from a country other than their own for a third
    country and that third country refuses them permission to
    land that they are returned to and accepted by the country
    from which they embarked and in such circumstances, it is
    not open to the Kenyan authorities to refuse this applicant
    leave to enter and should he satisfy the Kenyan authorities
    that he is indeed a refugee in that he has a well founded
    fear of persecution for the reasons referred to above then
    Kenya as a signatory to both the United Nations Convention
    on the Status of Refugees 1951 and the African Convention
    on Refugees 1969 is unlikely to return him to Uganda in
    breach of such international obligations."

    In addition to the evidence originally filed in support of the
    appellant's application for judicial review, two further affidavits
    sworn in October 1984 were put in evidence. One is by a
    Ugandan lawyer, now himself a refugee from that country. He
    gives a long and detailed account of the difficulties experienced in
    Kenya by Ugandans seeking to establish their status as refugees
    from their own country and of their frequent repatriation to
    whatever fate might await them in Uganda. The second deponent
    is a former Attorney-General and President of Uganda who
    testifies to the practice of the Kenyan authorities in arresting and
    repatriating refugees from Uganda. The reply to this evidence is

    - 12 -

    contained in the affidavit of a Mr. Handley, a Senior Executive
    Officer in the Immigration and Nationality Department of the
    Home Office. In this affidavit Mr. Handley states, echoing the
    language used by the Minister of State in his letter of 5 October
    1983, that "it is the respondent's belief that Kenya as a signatory
    to the United Nations Convention relating to the status of
    refugees would not knowingly remove a Ugandan citizen to Uganda
    if there was reason to believe he would be persecuted there." He
    refers to the evidence alleging repatriation of Ugandan refugees
    from Kenya and comments as follows:

    "I can say that although it has been the case that Kenya
    has returned Ugandan nationals to Uganda in the past the
    respondent has no evidence that this continues to be the
    case and indeed earlier this year after representations had
    been made to it by the United Nations High Commissioner
    for Refugees the Kenyan Government confirmed its position
    as a signatory to the said Convention."


    I approach the question raised by the challenge to the
    Secretary of State's decision on the basis of the law stated earlier
    in this opinion, viz. that the resolution of any issue of fact and
    the exercise of any discretion in relation to an application for
    asylum as a refugee lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
    Secretary of State subject only to the court's power of review.
    The limitations on the scope of that power are well known and
    need not be restated here. Within those limitations the court
    must, I think, be entitled to subject an administrative decision to
    the more rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way
    flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision
    determines. The most fundamental of all human rights is the
    individual's right to life and when an administrative decision under
    challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant's life at
    risk, the basis of the decision must surely call for the most
    anxious scrutiny.

    This is not, of course, a case where the claim to refugee
    status itself is in issue. The decision of the Secretary of State,
    as already pointed out, proceeds upon the implicit assumption that
    the appellant has or may have a well-founded fear of persecution
    in Uganda. Upon this premise to remove him directly to Uganda
    would be a clear breach of the Convention. The troublesome
    question is how far the provisions of the Convention, to the extent
    that they are incorporated in the relevant immigration rules,
    should be regarded as prohibiting the removal of a person who is a
    refugee from the country of his nationality to a third country in
    the face of an alleged danger that the authorities in that third
    country will send him home to face the persecution he fears.

    My Lords, I can well see that if a person arrives in the
    United Kingdom from country A claiming to be a refugee from
    country B, where country A is itself a party to the Convention,
    there can in the ordinary case be no obligation on the immigration
    authorities here to investigate the matter. If the person is
    refused leave to enter the United Kingdom, he will be returned to
    country A, whose responsibility it will be to investigate his claim
    to refugee status and, if it is established, to respect it. This is, I
    take it, in accordance with the "international practice" of which
    Mr. McDowall speaks in his affidavit. The practice must rest upon

    - 13 -

    the assumption that all countries which adhere to the Convention
    may be trusted to respect their obligations under it. Upon that
    hypothesis, it is an obviously sensible practice and nothing I say is
    intended to question it. It is not, however, difficult to imagine a
    case where reliance on the international practice would produce
    the very consequence which the Convention is designed to avoid,
    i.e. the return of refugees to the country where they will face the
    persecution they fear. Suppose it is well known that country A,
    although a signatory to the Convention, regularly sends back to its
    totalitarian and oppressive neighbour, country B, those opponents of
    the regime in country B who are apprehended in country A
    following their escape across the border. Against that background,
    if a person arriving in the United Kingdom from country A sought
    asylum as a refugee from country B, assuming he could establish
    his well-founded fear of persecution there, it would, it seems to
    me, be as much a breach of Article 33 of the Convention to
    return him to country A as to country B. The one course would
    effect indirectly, the other directly, the prohibited result, i.e. his
    return "to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
    would be threatened."

    For the sake of illustration, I have necessarily taken cases
    at opposite ends of a spectrum. In the ordinary case of a person
    arriving here, from a third country, and claiming asylum as a
    refugee from the country of his nationality, there will be no
    ground to apprehend that his removal to the third country whence
    he comes would put him at risk. But at the other end of the
    spectrum, the risk may be obvious. Between these two extremes
    there may be varying degrees of danger that removal to a third
    country of a person claiming refugee status will result in his
    return to the country where he fears persecution. If there is
    some evidence of such a danger, it must be for the Secretary of
    State to decide as a matter of degree the question whether the
    danger is sufficiently substantial to involve a potential breach of
    Article 33 of the Convention. If the Secretary of State has asked
    himself that question and answered it negatively in the light of all
    relevant evidence, the court cannot interfere.

    With these considerations in mind, I return to consider the
    evidence. Whatever doubts I may entertain as to the sufficiency
    of the interview by the immigration officer on 27 January 1983 as
    a basis for subsequent decisions by the Secretary of State, I
    recognise that the initial decision in March 1983 to return the
    appellant to the "safe country" from which he had come, could not
    be faulted. The point in the story at which I first find grounds to
    entertain serious doubts as to the basis of the decision, is in the
    reply by the Minister of State on 5 October 1983 to the
    representations by Mr. Stuart Holland M.P. In Mr. Rose's letter of
    30 July 1983, a senior diplomatic representative of Kenya was
    reported as stating quite categorically that, if returned to Kenya
    without permission to enter, the appellant would be removed to
    Uganda. There is no indication that the Home Office, either
    directly or indirectly, made any inquiry to verify or controvert this
    statement or to ascertain whether it was qualified by reference to
    any possible claim for asylum in Kenya. The statement remains
    uncontroverted save by implication by the statement in the
    Minister of State's letter that Kenya is a signatory to the
    Convention and "would not knowingly remove a Ugandan citizen to
    Uganda if there was reason to believe he would be persecuted
    there."

    - 14 -

    Even at this stage, however, it would be difficult not to
    accept the statement by the Minister of State in his letter,
    effectively repeated in the concluding passage of Mr. McDowall's
    affidavit, that the appellant's removal to Uganda was "unlikely" as
    a sufficient and unchallengeable answer to the relevant question
    which the Secretary of State was bound to ask himself. But it is
    to be noted in each case that the essential foundation for the
    assessment was the expressed confidence in Kenya's observation of
    its obligations under the Convention.

    It is the additional evidence filed on behalf of the appellant
    in October 1984 directly alleging breaches by Kenya of the
    Convention by the return to Uganda of Ugandan refugees, and
    more particularly the reply to that evidence filed on behalf of the
    Secretary of State, which put a different complexion on the matter.
    The affidavit of Mr. Handley is at worst self-contradictory, at
    best, ambiguous. He asserts "the respondent's belief that Kenya,
    as a signatory to the Convention, "would not knowingly" return
    Ugandan refugees to Uganda. But the very next sentence seems
    to amount to an admission that Ugandan refugees have been
    returned to Uganda by Kenya. If this is not the meaning, I do not
    understand the relevance, in the context, of the statement that "it
    has been the case that Kenya has returned Ugandan nationals to
    Uganda in the past," still less why this should have led to
    representations to the Kenyan government by the U.N.H.C.R. The
    inference one is entitled to draw from this obscurely drafted
    affidavit is that Kenya has at some unspecified time in the past
    been guilty to an unspecified extent of returning Ugandan refugees
    to Uganda in breach of Article 33 of the Convention and that the
    breaches were at least sufficient to evoke a protest from the
    U.N.H.C.R. The reaffirmed belief of the Secretary of State that
    Kenya "would not knowingly" act in breach of the Convention may
    perhaps be referable to the Kenyan government's response to the
    protest "confirming its position as a signatory" to the Convention.

    However that may be, I cannot escape the conclusion that
    the Secretary of State's decisions in relation to the appellant were
    taken on the basis of a confidence in Kenya's performance of its
    obligations under the Convention which is now shown to have been,
    at least to some extent, misplaced. Since Mr. Handley's affidavit
    does not condescend to particularity we do not know when Kenya's
    breaches of Article 33 in respect of Ugandan refugees occurred or
    when they came to the attention of the Home Office. The fact
    of such breaches must be very relevant to any assessment of the
    danger that the appellant, if returned to Kenya, would be sent
    home to Uganda. Since the decisions of the Secretary of State
    appear to have been made without taking that fact into account,
    they cannot, in my opinion, now stand.

    In point of form the only relief sought by the appellant in
    his notice of application under R.S.C. Ord. 53, r. 3(2) is an order
    to quash the removal orders dated 12 March 1983, 13 July 1983
    and 16 January 1984. Those orders directed the appellant's
    removal to Kenya by specified flights on dates now long past. It
    may be that, even if the appeal had failed, the Secretary of State
    would have felt obliged to reconsider the issue of the propriety of
    returning the appellant to Kenya in circumstances which may have
    changed radically after the lapse of three years. But for the

    - 15 -

    reasons I have given I am of the opinion that the appeal should be
    allowed and the orders formally quashed.

    LORD BRANDON OF OAKBROOK

    My Lords,

    I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches
    prepared by my noble and learned friends, Lord Bridge of Harwich
    and Lord Templeman. I agree with them, and for the reasons
    which they give I would dismiss the first three appeals and allow
    the fourth.

    LORD TEMPLEMAN

    My Lords,

    Section 1(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 provides that
    patrials, i.e. persons having the right of abode in the United
    Kingdom, shall be free to live in, and to come into the United
    Kingdom without let or hindrance, but by section 1(2) all other
    persons:

    "may live, work and settle in the United Kingdom by
    permission and subject to such regulations and control of
    their entry into, stay in and departure from the United
    Kingdom as is imposed by this Act;"

    By section 3(1) a person who is not patrial:

    "shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to
    do so in accordance with this Act [and] may be given leave
    to enter ... or remain in the United Kingdom either for a
    limited or for an indefinite period;"

    By section 3(2) the Secretary of State shall from time to
    time lay before Parliament statements of the rules laid down by
    him as to the practice to be followed in the administration of the
    Act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom
    of persons required to have leave to enter.

    By section 4(1) the power to give or refuse leave to enter
    the United Kingdom shall be exercised by immigration officers and
    the power to give leave to remain in the United Kingdom shall be
    exercised by the Secretary of State. By section 4(2) the provisions
    of Schedule 2 to the Act shall have effect with respect to the
    appointment and powers of immigration officers, the examination
    of persons arriving in or leaving the United Kingdom, the exercise
    by immigration officers of their powers in relation to entry into
    the United Kingdom, the removal from the United Kingdom of
    persons refused leave to enter or entering or remaining unlawfully,
    and the detention of persons pending examination or pending
    removal from the United Kingdom.

    - 16 -

    By paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, immigration officers for the
    purposes of the Act shall be appointed by the Secretary of State
    and shall act in accordance with such instructions (not inconsistent
    with the immigration rules) as may be given to them by the
    Secretary of State. By paragraph 2, an immigration officer may
    examine any person who has arrived in the United Kingdom, and
    by paragraph S where a person is refused leave to enter, an
    immigration officer may give directions for his removal from the
    United Kingdom. By paragraph 9, an immigration officer may
    direct the removal from the United Kingdom of an illegal entrant.
    By paragraph 10, powers of removal are also given to the
    Secretary of State. By paragraph 16 and 21, any person liable to
    be examined or removed, may either be detained or temporarily
    admitted to the United Kingdom.

    Sections 13-21 of the Act of 1971 enable any person refused
    leave to enter or directed to be removed from the United
    Kingdom to appeal to an adjudicator and from the adjudicator to
    an appeals tribunal but save in specific and limited cases not
    material in these proceedings, a person is not entitled to appeal so
    long as he is in the United Kingdom.

    The restrictions and limitations imposed by the Act of 1971
    on entry into and stay in the United Kingdom create a control and
    regulation of individuals and numbers by the decisions of the
    immigration authorities, i.e. immigration officers and the Secretary
    of State. An appeal from a decision lies only to an adjudicator
    and an appeal tribunal established by the Act, and then only if the
    appellant has left the United Kingdom. This is not surprising.
    The numbers of appellants and possible appellants would not permit
    all appellants to be released into the United Kingdom or detained
    pending the completion of the appellate process. If it is necessary
    to control entry into the United Kingdom, immediate effect must
    in general be given to the decisions of the immigration authorities
    unless in any individual case the immigration authorities direct
    otherwise, if such control is not to break down.

    The Act of 1971 does not allow the courts of this country
    to participate in the decision-making or appellate processes which
    control and regulate the right to enter and remain in the United
    Kingdom. This also is not surprising. Applications for leave to
    enter and remain do not in general raise justiciable issues.
    Decisions under the Act are administrative and discretionary rather
    than judicial and imperative. Such decisions may involve the
    immigration authorities in pursuing enquiries abroad, in consulting
    official and unofficial organisations and in making value judgments.
    The only power of the court is to quash or grant other effective
    relief in judicial review proceedings in respect of any decision
    under the Act of 1971 which is made in breach of the provisions
    of the Act or the rules thereunder or which is the result of
    procedural impropriety or unfairness or is otherwise unlawful.

    The appellants are not patrial. Three of them are illegal
    entrants liable to be removed from the United Kingdom under the
    Act of 1971. The appellant, Mr. Musisi, has been refused leave to
    enter the United Kingdom and is also liable to be removed under
    the Act. The appellants are entitled to appeal to an adjudicator
    or an appeals tribunal once they have been removed from the
    United Kingdom but this appellate procedure is useless to them

    - 17 -

    because they all seek to remain in the United Kingdom on the
    grounds that they fear persecution if they are removed from the
    United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the courts remain powerless to
    intervene unless the appellants demonstrate that they are entitled
    to the protection afforded by the process of judicial review.

    The United Kingdom is a signatory to the 1951 Convention
    relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating
    to the Status of Refugees. Article 1 of the Convention defines a
    refugee as a person who:

    "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons
    of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
    social group or political opinion, is outside the country of
    his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is
    unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country;
    or who, not having a nationality and being outside the
    country of his former habitual residence as a result of such
    events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
    return to it."

    Each of the appellants claims to be a refugee. By Article
    33 of the Convention, the United Kingdom as a signatory to the
    Convention, has undertaken not to return:

    "a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of
    territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on
    account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
    particular social group or political opinion."

    By the Act of 1971, a person who is not patrial but claims
    to be a refugee must nevertheless obtain leave from the
    immigration authorities to enter or remain in the United Kingdom
    and is liable to be removed from the United Kingdom if the
    immigration authorities do not accept his claim to be a refugee.

    By paragraph 73 of the Statement of Changes in
    Immigration Rules (1983) (HC169) laid before Parliament on 9
    February 1983 under section 3(2) of the Act of 1971:

    "Special considerations arise where the only country to
    which a person could be removed is one to which he is
    unwilling to go owing to well-founded fear of being
    persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
    membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
    Any case in which it appears to the immigration officer as
    a result of a claim or information given by the person
    seeking entry at a port that he might fall within the terms
    of this provision is to be referred to the Home Office for
    decision regardless of any grounds set out in any provision
    of these rules which may appear to justify refusal of leave
    to enter. Leave to enter will not be refused if removal
    would be contrary to the provisions of the Convention and
    Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees."

    Paragraph 16 directs that where a person is a refugee full
    account is to be taken of the provisions of the Convention and
    Protocol and nothing in the rules is to be construed as requiring
    action contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under those
    instruments.

    - 18 -

    It follows that any claim by a person to enter or remain in
    the United Kingdom on the grounds that he is a refugee must be
    carefully considered and decided by the Secretary of State. No
    appeal from the decision of the Secretary of State denying refugee
    status lies to the courts and no effective appeal lies to the
    adjudicator or appeals tribunal established by the Act if the person
    claiming refugee status is denied that status by the Secretary of
    State and is removed pursuant to the provisions of the Act of
    1971 to the country where, contrary to the view formed by the
    Secretary of State, he is in fact in danger of persecution.

    The claims of the first three appellants to be refugees have
    been considered and rejected by the Secretary of State and orders
    have been made for their removal from the United Kingdom. Mr.
    Musisi claims to be a refugee but has been refused leave to enter
    the United Kingdom and his removal has been ordered. The
    appellants now claim judicial review of the orders for their
    removal.

    The first three appellants contend that the court is entitled
    and bound to decide whether they are refugees protected by the
    Convention and the Protocol but this contention is inconsistent
    with the Act of 1971 which entrusts to the immigration authorities
    the right and duty to determine whether any person who is not
    patrial shall be given leave to enter or remain in the United
    Kingdom.

    In the alternative, these appellants contend that they are
    entitled to remain in the United Kingdom until their right to
    refugee status has been considered by the adjudicator and appeal
    tribunal system created by the Act of 1971. This contention is
    inconsistent with sections 13(3) and 16(2) which in the present
    circumstances deny the appellants power to appeal so long as they
    are in the United Kingdom.

    My noble and learned friend, Lord Bridge of Harwich has
    dealt in more detail with the contentions adopted by the
    appellants. The actions of a statutory decision-making body may
    be controlled by the court in judicial review proceedings if there
    has been a defect in the decision-making process. In the case of
    Mr. Musisi but not in the case of any of the other appellants, the
    evidence discloses that there may have been such a defect. The
    action of an authority entrusted by Parliament with decision-
    making can be investigated by the court:

    "with a view to seeing whether it has taken into account
    matters which it ought not to take into account or,
    conversely, has refused to take into account or neglected to
    take into account matters which it ought to take into
    account;" per Lord Greene M.R. in Associated Provincial
    Picture Houses Ltd, v. Wednesbury Corporation
    [1947] 2 All
    E.R. 680, 685.

    In my opinion where the result of a flawed decision may
    imperil life or liberty a special responsibility lies on the court in
    the examination of the decision-making process. In the case of
    Mr. Musisi, a first reading of the evidence filed on behalf of the
    Secretary of State and Mr. Musisi, gives rise to a suspicion that

    - 19 -

    the dangers and doubts involved in sending Mr. Musisi back to
    Kenya have not been adequately considered and resolved. As a
    result of the analysis of the evidence undertaken by my noble and
    learned friend, Lord Bridge of Harwich, I am not satisfied that the
    Secretary of State took into account or adequately resolved the
    ambiguities and uncertainties which surround the conduct and
    policy of the authorities in Kenya. With relief I gratefully concur
    in the reasoning of my noble and learned friend, Lord Bridge of
    Harwich, and agree that the orders made in respect of Mr. Musisi
    should be quashed. The appeals of the other appellants against the
    refusal of the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court to quash
    the orders made against them must be dismissed.

    LORD GRIFFITHS

    My Lords,

    I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech
    prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Bridge of Harwich.
    I agree that for the reasons he gives the first three appeals should
    be dismissed and the fourth appeal allowed.

    LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY

    My Lords,

    I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech
    prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Bridge of Harwich.
    I agree that for the reasons he gives the first three appeals should
    be dismissed and the fourth appeal allowed.

    - 20 -



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1986/3.html