The Secretary of State for the Home Department v The Special Immigration Appeals Commission & Ors [2015] EWHC 1236 (Admin)

Case No CO/4806/2014[2015] EWHC 1236 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 01/05/2015
Before
THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION(SIR BRIAN LEVESON)LADY JUSTICE MACUR DBEMR JUSTICE OUSELEY
Between
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTClaimantTHE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSIONDefendantAHK, AS, FM, AM, SN/MA, and HABIB IGNAOUAInterested Parties
Steven Kovats Q.C.and Julian Blake (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for Claimant for The Defendant did not appear and was not representedStephanie Harrison Q.C., Amanda Weston and Edward Grievesvariously for 1 st, 2 nd, 4 th and 6 th Interested Parties (instructed by Birnberg Pierce & Partners, Wilsons Solicitors, Bates Wells Braithwaite and Fountain Solicitors)Ramby de Mello (instructed by Broudie, Jackson & Cantor) for 3 rd Interested PartyJudith Farbey Q.C.and Martin Goudie(instructed by the Special Advocates Support Office) as Special AdvocatesDealt with on written submissions
JudgmentSir Brian Leveson P:
[1]This is a judgment of the court necessitated by a disagreement as to the terms of the order which properly reflects both OPEN and CLOSED decisions handed down on 18 March 2015. Suffice to say that we have no doubt that the declaration which properly reflects the judgments of the court is:
“It is declared that, on a review under s.2C or s.2D of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, the Secretary of State is required to disclose to the Commission under Rule 10B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 the material identified as used by the author of any relevant report to found or to justify the facts or conclusions expressed; alternatively, if the decision under review is subsequently re-analysed, disclosure must be of such material as was in existence at the date of decision under review and which the Secretary of State considers sufficient to justify those facts and conclusions.”
[2]This effectively reflects the submissions as to the appropriate declaration that was advanced both by the Interested Parties and the Special Advocates and, for their purposes it is not necessary to go further. As for the Secretary of State, it is sufficient to identify those parts of the CLOSED judgment (for those entitled to read it) that identify the issue which concerned the court and point to this construction: this has been done in a separate CLOSED note. The reference to rule 10B is to make it clear that this is not an order which has been engaged by Rule 4(3) or the duty of candour. We add, for the avoidance of doubt, that this ruling does not address disclosure obligations arising under s. 2C and 2D of the 1997 Act.[3]As to costs, although the Secretary of State did not succeed in her broad submission, the effect of the declaration is very far from that argued by the Interested Parties which was primarily to the effect that this court had no business interfering in any way with the decision of SIAC: we reject the submission that the effect of the declaration does not go to the substance of the decision of SIAC. There shall be no order for costs save for assessment of the publicly funded costs of the legally aided Interested Parties.