QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
133- 137 Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1HD
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF AHSAN JAMIL PASHA||(Claimant)|
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT||(Defendant)|
Merrill Legal Solutions Limited
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Paul Greatorex (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
"Leave varied, to supersede previous endorsement on page 12."
"In time application -- supersede previous endorsement".
"General Provisions for Regulation and Control".
(3) In the case of a limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom,—
(a) A person's leave may be varied, whether by restricting, enlarging or removing the limit on its duration, or by adding, varying or revoking conditions, but if the limit on its duration is removed, any conditions attached to the leave shall cease to apply; and:
(b) The limitation on and any conditions attached to a person's leave (whether imposed originally or on a variation) shall, if not superseded, apply also to any subsequent leave he may obtain after an absence from the United Kingdom within the period limited for the duration of the earlier leave."
In my judgment, that section does not assist the Claimant. At the date of the decision in April 2008, there was no leave to be varied or enlarged. The Claimant had no leave to be present in the country. That is made clear by the decision letter of 26 September 2007.
"Removal from the United Kingdom. You no longer have any right to stay in the United Kingdom and unless you inform us now of any reasons why you think you should be allowed to stay in this country, as indicated above, you must leave as soon as possible. If you do not leave the United Kingdom voluntarily, you will be removed to Pakistan."
In paragraph 4(1) of the observations that he made when granting permission, the judge said:
"The basis on which the revocation decision of 21 September 2007 was taken was sufficiently arguably erroneous and unlawful that permission to apply for judicial review had been granted. The only reason that the matter did not end with a decision was that the challenge had become academic."
That is so. However, it is clear from the judgment of Lord Carlile QC on 17 December 2008, ordering the claim for judicial review to be dismissed, that whilst there was no allegation of deception in this case, there was a strong factual basis for the revocation. Indeed the judgment of Lord Carlile confirmed that the curtailment was lawful. The application for judicial review was dismissed and the Secretary of State was awarded costs to be assessed, if not agreed.