Judicial review proceedings may be terminated by government

12 August 2013 by

20100204104618!TerminatorIgnaoua, R (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2013] EWHC 2512 (Admin) – read judgment

The Government’s termination of existing judicial review proceedings via certification under the Justice and Security Act was “troubling” but lawful. Parliament’s  intention was clear, even though there were no new rules in force yet.

The claimant was challenging her exclusion from the UK on national security grounds in proceedings commenced in 2010. The proceedings were terminated under special powers conferred by the Act. The challenge could proceed instead before the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission (SIAC), which has all the powers of the divisional court to conduct a judicial review of his exclusion.

The question before the court was whether the certificate had been lawfully made and not an abuse of process.

Factual and Legal Background

The claimant, a Tunisian national, had been extradited to Italy following a counter-terror operation by the Italian police. In June 2010 the Secretary of State had assessed him as being involved in facilitation and radicalisation activities for terrorist purposes.  She rejected the argument that the UK was responsible for his asylum claim under the Dublin Regulation since the asylum application had lapsed when he was extradited.

In his application for judicial review of the exclusion order the claimant also challenged the Home Secretary’s  failure to determine his asylum application, her failure to re-admit him to the United Kingdom, and her failure to accept responsibility for determining his asylum claim under the terms of the Dublin Regulation. These judicial review proceedings were subject to several lengthy delays, and in July 2013 the Secretary of State applied to vacate the hearing on the basis that the claimant had open to him a new route to challenge her decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom. That was by way of an application to SIAC as a result of the Justice and Security Act 2013.

In response, the claimant’s counsel announced her intention to challenge the certification on the basis that it did not oust the jurisdiction of the court; that it was an abuse of power and involved the exercise of a statutory power for an improper purpose; and it could not operate retrospectively. Cranston J  ruled that the argument should be confined to the issue of law as to the power to certify.

Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 1913 reflected the government’s view that there needed to be a closed material procedure so courts could hear sensitive cases in closed session where national security issues were raised.

The claimant advanced several strands of legal argument to the interpretation of the powers granted by the Act. One of them was the courts’ historic aversion to ouster clauses, most famously expressed in the case of Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969], which established that ouster clauses must be construed strictly, meaning that “if such a provision is reasonably capable of having two meanings, that meaning shall be taken which preserves the ordinary jurisdiction of the court”.

Another principle put forward by the claimant was that statutory power, although expressed in general terms, should not be construed so as to authorise acts which infringe the basic rules and principles of the common law, one such rule being unimpeded access to court. The power exercised in this case by the Home Secretary, argued the claimant, offended this common law rule.

Drawing on these principles, the claimant submitted the legislation could not be read as automatically terminating proceedings for judicial review in this type of case without further order of the court. He contended that this was an ouster of the court’s jurisdiction; any proceedings in SIAC were new proceedings:

The rule of law sets its face against ouster clauses, in particular where the Executive claims a power to terminate judicial supervision of its actions, on its own dictat, since this might be for its own litigation advantage.

The Court dismissed the application.

Reasoning behind the judgment

Cranston J acknowledged that there were “disturbing features” regarding the practical implementation of the statutory scheme, notably the absence of procedural rules for SIAC to hear cases like the claimant’s which have been terminated. It was also “troubling” that the Secretary of State could terminate proceedings to which she was a party. Nevertheless, the claimant’s submissions failed in the light of a clear Parliamentary intention expressed in section 15 of the Justice and Security Act 2013.

The language of termination in the statute is hard-edged and indicates to me the intention that the court does not retain any residual jurisdiction. Although termination itself is pursuant to the Order made under the legislation, the power to terminate (and the language of termination) is in the Act itself, not subordinate legislation.

In a recent case on exclusion, R (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service [2009], the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had not ousted judicial scrutiny of the acts of the intelligence services but had simply allocated that scrutiny to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.   Like  (A) , the question in this case was whether jurisdiction was allocated to an institution up to the task of considering the challenge. To use the language of Laws LJ in  (A), in this case there could be no cause for concern on that score.

Related posts

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS


  1. r1xlx says:

    Forgive me if I am wrong but the UK is signed up to the UN Convention which quite clearly states the countries have to ensure the health and wellbeing of its citizens. – allowing a terrorist in to foment terrorism is not applying the convention. Extend this to the fact that chasing, holding and extraditing terrorists involves a lot of police and prison time which could better be used protecting the health, wellbeing and security of hte general population.
    Many asylum seekers, terrorist and general criminals can be exported and prevented from entering the UK by simply following the UN Convention – doing this would be unprofitable for lawyers.

  2. busybeebuzz says:

    Rosanlind, you haven’t been consistent in your references to the claimant’s gender. In one sentence you wrote that: “The claimant was challenging her exclusion from the UK…” I another sentence you wrote: “In June 2010 the Secretary of State had assessed him as being involved…”

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: