THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF OTHENE MANU v THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [2001] EWCA Civ 1915

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN)
[2001] EWCA Civ 1915Case No C/2001/1506Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2, Friday, 7 December 2001
Between
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF OTHENE MANUClaimant/ApplicantTHE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTDefendant/Respondent
Before
Lord Justice PillThe Applicant appeared in personThe Respondent did not appear and was not representedDate 7 December 2001

LORD JUSTICE PILL:

This

[1]is an application for permission to appeal against the order of Sullivan J given on 15 June 2001 whereby he refused the application of Mr Manu for permission to apply for judicial review. Mr Ohene Manu sought to quash a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal made on 24 November 1997 whereby that Tribunal dismissed an appeal against a decision of a Special Adjudicator given on 18 April 1997.[2]The notice of application for permission to appeal to this court was filed on 5 July. It was six days out of time and the applicant also seeks an extension of time for filing that notice.[3]The applicant is a citizen of Ghana who entered the United Kingdom illegally on 8 August 1994 using a false passport. He applied for asylum and later was formally interviewed. His application was refused by the Secretary of State in July 1996. He appealed to a Special Adjudicator who considered the appeal on 19 March 1997. Neither the applicant nor a representative attended at the hearing. A fax was received from his representative requesting that the application be determined on the basis of the documentation submitted. The Special Adjudicator dismissed the appeal.[4]The Immigration Appeal Tribunal granted the applicant permission to appeal against the decision of the Special Adjudicator. At the hearing before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal the applicant was represented by a Mr Agati. The Tribunal considered the submissions made to it and dismissed the appeal on 24 November 1997. In February 2001 the applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. An extension of time was sought. The matter came before Sullivan J on 15 June 2001. The applicant did not attend at that hearing. Sullivan J refused the application, referring in the course of his judgment to the long delay which had occurred between the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in November 1997 and the application to apply for judicial review in February 2001. Sullivan J referred to the reasons given for that delay. He said:
"That is not, on the face of it, a particularly convincing reason for a delay that extends to years rather than months or weeks. In recent correspondence with the Treasury Solicitor a different explanation has been proffered. It is that the applicant filed the papers himself but failed to bring a copy to his advisers owing to ill health. I have to say that that ground as well would not be an adequate explanation for such a lengthy delay. So whichever of the explanations for delay is right, neither of them provides a sufficient justification. There has been no appearance before me. But rather than refuse the application on the basis of non appearance I do so because it is manifestly an abuse of the process of the court and manifestly way out of time. For those reasons, this renewed application is refused."
[5]Against that background I have heard the applicant this morning. He has applied for an adjournment. He sent a letter to the court, dated 3 December, received on 5 December (that is the day before yesterday). He has appeared this morning and has read the contents of the letter out:
"I have the honour to apply to you for an adjournment to enable me to obtain Legal Aid in order to secure the services of a counsel for which an application has already been submitted with an information to me, that it is under consideration before the Legal Services. I may humbly state that I have been advised that the legal implication contained in the case is beyond my lay man's knowledge and my income is also such that I am unable to obtain the services of counsel on my own. I hope that the court may grant my application in fairness to justice."
[6]When asked why he had not applied sooner, the applicant said he had not understood the position. I note that he filed his application with the administrative court on 5 July and later submitted a bundle of documents in an appropriate form following an order made on 15 August 2001 requiring that bundle to be submitted. He has told me that the application for legal aid was made on 15 November. That is several months after the decision of Sullivan J and indeed after he himself had filed his notice of appeal, though that itself was out of time. In those circumstances I am not prepared to grant the adjournment requested.[7]I have referred to the background of this case. There is a long history of delay and it would not in the interests of justice be right on this very late application for legal aid, which was notified to the court just before today's hearing, to grant that adjournment. The application for an adjournment is refused.

Order

Application for an adjournment refused.

Cited in 2 later judgments