RM, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 260 (IAC)

[2017] UKUT 00260 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Judicial Review Decision Notice
The Queen on the application of
RM
Applicant
v
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Decision of Upper Tribunal Judge O’Connor:
The application for judicial review is GRANTED
On this application for judicial review following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties and having heard Mr R Toal, instructed by Wilson Solicitors LLP, on behalf of the applicant and Ms C Rowlands, instructed by the Government Legal Department, on behalf of the respondent, at a hearing on 24 March 2017.
(1) The scope of a challenge to a transfer decision brought, pursuant to art. 27 of Regulation 604/13 (Dublin III), on the basis that the decision infringes the second subparagraph of art. 19(2) of Dublin III is limited to ‘traditional’ public law grounds.
(2) Section 15(5A) of the Tribunals, Court and Enforcement Act 2007 applies to applications for judicial review, in which the application for permission to bring such proceedings was received by the Upper Tribunal on, or after, 8 August 2016.
Anonymity Direction
I make an anonymity order, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. Unless the Upper Tribunal or other appropriate Court or Tribunal orders otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify the applicant. This prohibition applies to, amongst others, all parties and their representatives.
DECISION AND REASONS
Between
RM, R (on the application of)AppellantThe Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentRespondentDate 2017-03-24

Order

[1]This application for judicial review is allowed;[2]The decision of 30 November 2015 declining to consider the applicant’s claim for asylum; issuing a certificate under Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, Schedule 3, paragraph 4 and proposing to remove the Applicant to France is quashed;[3]For reasons given orally – the respondent is to pay 75% of the applicant’s costs of, and incidental to, these proceedings, to be assessed if not agreed;[4]There be detailed assessment of the applicant’s publicly funded costs;[5]Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is refused. The respondent did not seek permission to appeal and, having considered all the circumstances of the case, I conclude that it is not appropriate to grant permission.

Cited in 1 later judgment