All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
The failure of the Defendant to consider other similar cases rendered the decision to refuse the Claimant indefinite leave to remain irrational.
13 July 2012
James Dingemans QC
(1) The Claimant, an Iraqi national, was one of the hijackers of a Sudan Airways Airbus that arrived at Stansted airport in August 1996. He asserted that he was acting under duress. The Claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant's decision to refuse him indefinite leave to remain, instead granting him discretionary leave to remain for a period of 3 years.
(2) The Claimant contended that the Defendant's decision was unlawful because:
(a) The decision was inconsistent with the approach taken to others involved in the hijacking;
(b) The conclusion of the Defendant, that the Claimant was excluded from international protection due to his involvement in hijacking, was irrational and unreasonable;
(c) If the Defendant's policy in relation to the grant of indefinite leave to remain had been properly applied, the Claimant would have been granted leave to remain.
To read the full case summary and to view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Public Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).
To request a free trial click here and select Jordans Public Law online from the drop down menu.