Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
There was some debate in the course of the hearing as to the appropriate standard to be applied by the Minister in the case of an application for consent under
s. 17(7) of the Refugee Act, 1996. It was accepted by counsel for the respondent that the Minister could not resile from the test specified on his behalf in the refusal letter of 2 nd April, 2003. That test is stated to be as follow:-
It should be noted that the decision, including the specification of the above test, was in fact taken by a deciding officer to whom the Minister's powers were delegated. Nothing in this case turns on that fact.
Counsel for the applicant suggests that the appropriate test is that adopted by the Courts in the United Kingdom where the case of R v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Onibiyo (1996) 2 A.E.R. 901 is a convenient starting point. In Onibiyo Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. stated at page 497:-
Based upon that logic the Master of the Rolls approved the dicta of Stewart-Smith L.J. in Singh ( Manvinder) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (8 th December 1995 CA) to the following effect:-
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.