Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by the decision maker. The Tribunal decided it could not hear their claims in relation to mistakes of fact. This was probably correct under the law governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether or not the mistake of fact that the appellants wished to challenge could be raised as a free- standing claim, entirely separate from the statutory requirements which would preclude it. The Court of Appeal answered in the affirmative and indicated this would also apply to mainstream judicial review cases.
Answer
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044
Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by the decision maker. The Tribunal decided it could not hear their claims in relation to mistakes of fact. This was probably correct under the law governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether or not the mistake of fact that the appellants wished to challenge could be raised as a free- standing claim, entirely separate from the statutory requirements which would preclude it. The Court of Appeal answered in the affirmative and indicated this would also apply to mainstream judicial review cases.
Answer
?
Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by the decision maker. The Tribunal decided it could not hear their claims in relation to mistakes of fact. This was probably correct under the law governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether or not the mistake of fact that the appellants wished to challenge could be raised as a free- standing claim, entirely separate from the statutory requirements which would preclude it. The Court of Appeal answered in the affirmative and indicated this would also apply to mainstream judicial review cases.
Answer
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044
Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by th
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.