Judicial Review: What is meant by “totally without merit”

15 February 2016 by

Samia Wasif and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82

Read judgment here

What is the difference between a case that is “totally without merit” and one that is “not arguable”? Are either of those more or less hopeless than a case that is “bound to fail”?

These are questions that only a lawyer would ask. But they are also ones that can determine whether a claimant for immigration status will have an opportunity to make his case in court, or be sent back to his purported persecutors on the papers alone. For that reason, they are questions that the Court of Appeal have addressed in Wasif and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82.

The background is the pressure on the courts and tribunals as a result of the increase in judicial review claims involving asylum and immigration matters, and the government’s response to it. Judicial review claims have long involved a filter system that requires a claimant to obtain the permission of the court for their case to be heard in full. This is done initially on the papers (i.e. without a hearing). The test has traditionally been thought to be whether the claim is “arguable” or whether it has “a realistic prospect of success”. If it is, proceed to a full hearing. If not, then what?

In the past, the answer was that all claimants could go before the courts to argue why permission should be granted. This stage, known as the renewal hearing, is generally a relatively short affair in which the claimant tries to address the perceived weaknesses in the case. In many cases, the refusal of permission is upheld (sometime in curt judicial tones). On occasions, however, the oral hearing reveals a meritorious point that was missed by the judge considering the papers, or was absent from them. Permission is granted and the judicial review will go on to be heard. In such cases the renewal hearing has served its function as the safety net, ensuring that a case that can and should be argued in court is kept alive.

The problem is the obvious one: the rise in judicial review and oral renewals has led to more and more court time being devoted to the least compelling cases. The solution, as of 2013, was to change the procedural rules to raise a new hurdle. Where a judge or tribunal has refused permission on the papers and considers the claim to be “totally without merit”, then the claimant will not get his or her oral renewal hearing. The claim will have failed*. (Those amendments are at CPR r. 54.12, para. 7 and Upper Tribunal Rules 2008, r.30.)

In theory, this looks like a common sense solution to a real problem. The Court in Wasif had no doubt that “the policy considerations underlying the 2013 rule-changes are as powerful as they ever were, if not more so.” But what does “totally without merit” mean? It clearly has to be more than “not arguable”, as otherwise whenever permission was refused the case would be marked as “totally without merit” and oral renewal hearings would become extinct. That was clearly not the intention of the amended rules, even if some in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice may have considered it a serendipitous outcome. In a previous case, R (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1191, a differently constituted Court of Appeal rejected an argument that “totally without merit” should be reserved for cases “so hopeless or misconceived that a civil restraint order would be justified if such applications were persistently made.” Instead they held that it “means no more and no less than ‘bound to fail’”. Nonetheless the issue continued to give rise to difficulties, which resulted in the Court returning to the matter in Wasif. Underhill LJ, giving the judgment of a court that included the Master of the Rolls, sought to square the circle in the following way:

“In our view the key to the conundrum is to recognise that the conventional criterion for the grant of permission does not always in practice set quite as low a threshold as the language of “arguability” or “realistic prospect of success” might suggest. There are indeed cases in which the judge considering an application for permission to apply for judicial review can see no rational basis on which the claim could succeed: these are in our view the cases referred to in Grace as “bound to fail” (or “hopeless”). In such cases permission is of course refused. But there are also cases in which the claimant or applicant (we will henceforth say “claimant” for short) has identified a rational argument in support of his claim but where the judge is confident that, even taking the case at its highest, it is wrong. In such a case also it is in our view right to refuse permission; and in our experience this is the approach that most judges take. On this approach, even though the claim might be said to be “arguable” in one sense of the word, it ceases to be so, and the prospect of it succeeding ceases to be “realistic”, if the judge feels able confidently to reject the claimant’s arguments. The distinction between such cases and those which are “bound to fail” is not black-and-white, but we believe that it is nevertheless real; and it avoids the apparent anomaly [whereby all permission refusals would otherwise be marked “totally without merit”]”

All clear? Perhaps envisaging that it was not, the Court made some further observations (which were intended for use by the Upper Tribunal as well as the High Court).

  1. Judges should “certainly not” certify applications as “totally without merit” as an automatic consequence of refusing permission. The criteria are different.
  2. No judge should certify an application as “totally without merit” unless he or she is: “confident after careful consideration that the case truly is bound to fail. He or she will no doubt have in mind the seriousness of the issue and the consequence of his decision in the particular case.” (per Maurice Kay LJ in Grace)
  3. A case should only be certified where the judge is satisfied that a hearing could serve no purpose in allowing the claimant to address perceived weaknesses or omissions in the case.
  4. As a “thought-experiment” it may assist a judge to consider whether he or she can conceive of a judicial colleague taking a different view on the granting of permission. (The Court was careful, though, to stress that this was not a formal test – “the point of a renewal hearing is not that the claimant is entitled to another dip into the bran-tub of Administrative Court of Upper Tribunal judges in the hope of finding someone more sympathetic.”)
  5. Where a judge suspects that there may be an arguable claim, even if the point in question has not been pleaded properly or at all, then it should not be certified as “totally without merit”.
  6. A case should not be certified as “totally without merit” on the basis of a point raised in the summary grounds of defence to which the claimant may have an answer (given that at that stage the claimant would not have seen the summary grounds).
  7. Where a claim is certified as “totally without merit” then “peculiar care must be taken to ensure that all the arguments raised in the grounds are properly addressed” when the judge gives reasons for coming to his or her decision. Separate reasons should be given for the certification (as opposed to the refusal of permission), even if those separate reasons rest on what has been said previously. The reasoning need not be lengthy, but it should be structured.
  8. The Court expressed some doubt about the view expressed in previous authorities that the arguability of a claim can be affected by the nature and gravity of the issue. However, it was not called upon to decide this matter.

Helpful though this checklist may be, the Court acknowledged that it is “inescapable” that decisions on when a case was “totally without merit” were, in essence, matters for individual judges to assess in individual cases. And that is the rub: “totally without merit” will remain a label attached to those cases that judges think are particularly hopeless. The discussion of semantics in Wasif and Grace disguise the difficulty in expressing in law what is and will remain a more general judgment-call. The Court presumably had this in mind when stressing the importance of giving reasons specifically for the “totally without merit” certification.

Readers who have made it this far may be wondering how it is that two cases that were certified as being “totally without merit” on the papers ended up being discussed at an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal. One of the appellants themselves was not wholly clear on this point either, requiring the judicial deus ex machina to ensure the case was heard. The Court found that a “totally without merit” certification is not itself appealable as such. Instead, a claimant has to challenge the refusal to grant permission to apply for judicial review. To do so, they must of course first seek permission to appeal. Where permission for judicial review has been refused and the case certified as “totally without merit”, then the application for permission to appeal will be determined on the papers without an oral hearing (CPR r.15 and r. 52.15A). The Court in Wasif wrinkled the judicial brow at this state of affairs: “It is surprising, and sometimes inconvenient, that the hands of a judge of this Court should be tied in this way by a decision taken at first instance.”

This explains the asterisk earlier in this blog post. For when an application for permission for judicial review is refused, and is certified as “totally without merit”, the end of the road has not quite been reached. Permission may still be sought to appeal the decision to refuse permission. But as the case is “totally without merit”, as opposed to being “not arguable”, permission to appeal the decision to refuse permission on the papers will itself only be considered on the papers. Were permission to be granted, there would then be an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal about the failure of the High Court to allow an oral hearing. Welcome to the world of the judicial review in immigration law.

 

 

 

4 comments


  1. Curious says:

    Why isn’t my former comment showing?

  2. Curious says:

    Not being a lawyer or anything, having just glanced at the text of this article, I am inclined to think that:

    1) A phrase like “totally without merit” is only meaningful in a literal sense when considered as being prescriptive (meant to be something quite authoritative and judgemental).

    2) The phrase “totally without merit” sounds the same as “absolutely without merit”, having the same meaning as I described in pt.1. Though, being more suggestive than affirmative.

    3) A phrase like “totally without merit” also sounds like it could be an exaggeration, being a description of having wanted to point out that one thinks something in particular to be pointless, as in being meaningless, thus not being authoritative at all. In that case, there ought to be no difference between the meaning of “no merit” and “totally without merit”.

    4) I think there could also be possible to interpret the phrase “absolutely without merit” as an instance of ‘wishful thinking’ or ‘bullshit’, a mere supposition, having no significance, other than merely alluding to something as being important, or outright suggest something to have some kind of importance. I personally suspect that most instances in which the word “absolutely” are used, they probably are a load of bs, for the reasons mentioned here.

    5) The word “totally” in front of “without merit” could easily be thought of as this kind of conceptual metaphor (a word being meaningless when used, yet alluding to it being meaningful, as if you had to simply attempt to guess at what was meant by it), which might make sense when thinking that someone has decided that *something* was deemed to be without merit given some specific context that had been previously explained.

    6) As a general rule of sorts, for giving, or denying legitimacy to statements (their points included ofc) as being reasonable or not, I think statements containing words or phrases that one would have to think about of as being instances of likely ‘conceptual metaphors’, should be thought of as being suspect at best, and possibly nonsense at the worst.

    One such example of nonsense imo, is this one dissenting member of UN’s working group on arbitrary detention, apparently made the following statement (among others) in English (was it translated?):

    “However, these territories and premises of self-confinement cannot be considered as places of detention for the purposes of the mandate of the Working Group.”

    Here, the phrase “for the purposes of” doesn’t make any sense I would argue, and is instead meaningful only as something suggestive, though the authoritative tone of the whole sentence makes this quoted phrase hard to interpret as anything other than being strictly poingnant, even though it couldn’t possibly be because of the”for the purpose” part. I’d say that any perceived conclusiveness expressed in the quoted sentence above is illusory so to speak.

  3. David says:

    When the Judiciary in the RCJ decide to refuse to recognise that their Judicial Acts are not above the Law, and refuse to allow the clear provisions in Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, they have used the ruling “totally without merit” and without giving any supporting reasons in the associated Judgments.

    The Court of Appeal’s citation for rejecting the provisions given in Section 7 was Lord Denning’s MR Judgment in Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118, even though this was some 25 years before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect in October 2000.

    Until that Judgment is overturned there will be no right to justice in the English Courts.

  4. Mark says:

    What it actually means is ‘you are a litigant in person, shoo…. ‘…even with Art.2 cases –

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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics 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 european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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: