Judicial review proceedings may not be terminated by the government – Court of Appeal

22 November 2013 by

20100204104618!TerminatorIgnaoua, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1498  – read judgment

A certificate issued by the Home Secretary under Section 2 C of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997  (the “1997 Act”), as inserted by Section 15 of the  Justice and Security Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”), did not terminate existing judicial review proceedings in relation to an exclusion direction which had been certified.

The appellant appealed against a decision concerning judicial review proceedings he had brought against the respondent secretary of state (see my previous post for the factual background of the case). These proceedings had been terminated by virtue of the 2013 Act. The appellant challenged the certificate, but Cranston J below held that the intention of Parliament was “hard-edged” and left no discretion to the judge, and meant that if an exclusion direction was certified by the secretary of state, any challenge to it had to be advanced to SIAC (the Special Immigration Appeals Commission). The question before the Court of Appeal here was whether the secretary of state’s certificate was effective to terminate the judicial review proceedings relating to the exclusion direction. At the time of the appeal, the procedural rules required for an application to SIAC were not in force.

The secretary of state contended that parliament’s intention that the effect of the certificate to terminate judicial review proceedings was clearly set out in Schedule 3, para 4(2)(b) of the 2013 Act, which meant that where an exclusion direction was certified, a challenge to the direction “must” be advanced to SIAC. It was argued on her behalf that the transitional provisions relating to the termination of judicial review proceedings were a corollary of the intention of Parliament, expressed in section 15 of the 2013 Act, that where an exclusion direction is certified by the Secretary of State, a challenge to the direction must be advanced in SIAC rather than by way of judicial review. This way of putting it was in line with Cranston J’s approach to the matter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Reasoning behind the judgment

The power to make provision for the termination of judicial review proceedings was couched in very general terms but that generality did not assist the Secretary of State. If it had been intended to empower the making of provision whereby the Secretary of State, by making a certificate, could cause existing judicial review proceedings against her to terminate automatically and without the intervention of the court, the Court would have expected specific, express language to that effect; and in the absence of such express language it did not think that Schedule 3, para 4(2)(b) should not be read as conferring upon the secretary of state such a striking power.

The terms of Section 15 of the 2013 Act did not reveal a clear intention of that kind. In Richard LJ’s view

 Section 2C of the 1997 Act, as inserted by section 15, provides in subsection (2) that where a direction is certified “the non-EEA national to whom the direction relates may apply to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to set aside the direction” (emphasis added). It opens the way to an application to SIAC but it does not provide that an application to set aside the certificate must be made to SIAC rather than to the court. It does not block an application to the court by way of judicial review. [23]

The 2013 Act does not purport to remove the court’s jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review application in relation to an exclusion direction made and certified after the commencement day.  It opened the way to an application to SIAC but it did not provide that application to set aside the certificate had to be made to SIAC rather than to the court. It did not block an application for judicial review. In relation to an exclusion direction made and certified after June 25, 2013, the 2013 Act empowered the secretary of state to effect the automatic termination of existing judicial review proceedings by a certificate made after the commencement day. The statute conferred no such power. It followed that in purporting to provide, by Article 4(3) of the 2013 Order, that a certificate under Section 2C(1)(c) of the 1997 Act in relation to a direction made before 25 June 2013 “terminates any judicial review proceedings, or proceedings on appeal from such proceedings”, the secretary of state was acting outside the powers conferred on her by the 2013 Act:

Article 4(3) of the 2013 Order provides on its face that the effect of a certificate under section 2C(1)(c) of the 1997 Act in respect of an exclusion direction made before 25 June 2013 is automatically to terminate any existing judicial review proceedings which relate to that direction. If that is indeed the legal effect of such a certificate, it is a truly remarkable result, since it puts in the hands of the Secretary of State, as a party to (indeed, a defendant to) judicial review proceedings, the power to bring about the termination of those proceedings by her own act and without any intervention by the court; and to do so irrespective of the stage that the proceedings have reached, whether at first instance or on appeal

Article 4(3) of the 2013 Order was outside the powers conferred by the 2013 Act. The appellant’s judicial review challenge to the exclusion decision had not been terminated by the making of the certificate.  It was unnecessary to consider what provision the Secretary of State could lawfully have made or could now make by Order for the termination of existing judicial review proceedings, save to note that it followed from the matters set out above that such provision must make “proper allowance for the role of the court” in deciding whether the proceedings are to terminate.

The case would be remitted to the Administrative Court to determine, in the light of up to date information about the procedural position within SIAC, whether the judicial review proceedings should be stayed or allowed to continue. The Court also  declared that article 4(3) of the 2013 Order was outside the powers conferred by the 2013 Act and that the judicial review proceedings relating to the exclusion direction had not been terminated by the making of the certificate.

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

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: