UK case law
Mylvaganam, R (on the application of), Re
[2004] EWHC ADMIN 3025 · High Court (Administrative Court) · 2004
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
1. MR JUSTICE DAVIS: The manner in which this applicant arrived in this country using a forged passport and did not claim asylum immediately is unimpressive. In addition, some of the points that have been raised on his behalf are also extremely unimpressive. I reject the ground advanced that there was here procedural unfairness. Indeed, it is a bit cool of the applicant to assert that when he himself did not have his tackle in order when making his representations to the Secretary of State.
2. The position is that the Secretary of State, through a very detailed decision letter dated 30th July 2004, has rejected the claim put forward and has certified, by reference to section 94(2) and (3) of the 2002 Act, which, of course, is to be construed in the light of the decision in Thangarasa .
3. Having considered the arguments, I am just persuaded that there may be a point with regard to aspects of the decision letter, in particular as to whether the applicant can safely be removed to certain parts of Sri Lanka given what is asserted to be the applicant's high profile political status as a Tamil who does not support the LTTE.
4. Accordingly, I am just persuaded that this is a case where I should grant permission. Whether at any substantive hearing the argument will prove to be well-founded remains to be seen, and, even if they do, whether the claims put forward could survive a hearing on the facts in front of an Adjudicator also remains to be seen. On the whole I grant permission, but not on the procedural unfairness ground.
5. Mr Patel, what is the position about -- is he currently detained?
6. MR COORAY: No, my Lord.
7. MR JUSTICE DAVIS: He is on bail?
8. MR PATEL: I think so, my Lord.
9. MR JUSTICE DAVIS: Sometimes these things go for a full hearing and sometimes they do not. Applications sometimes prove to be a longer process than going straight to a hearing before an Adjudicator. What I would say is that one way or the other this matter should come on for a hearing as soon as possible.
10. MR PATEL: My Lord, we would welcome that. You will note our comments in the acknowledgment of service.
11. MR JUSTICE DAVIS: Absolutely. On the footing that there will be a full hearing, you have your materials now in, Mr Cooray, whether you are allowed to put in any more bearing in mind your transition letter remains to be seen. What do you think, Mr Patel, in terms of getting this on quickly?
12. MR PATEL: My Lord, there are a series of cases on section 94.
13. MR JUSTICE DAVIS: If I want to make this fact specific to this particular applicant, to his own political alleged background.
14. MR PATEL: My Lord, I appreciate that. Without speaking to my solicitor I think the --
15. MR JUSTICE DAVIS: You might want to group this one with the other ones?
16. MR PATEL: It may be possible to do that. On the other hand, it may be better to take it on its own. I don't know.
17. MR JUSTICE DAVIS: What I will do is I will give a direction that the substantive hearing of this judicial review application I direct expedition. Could you both, please, try and arrange an early date as is convenient. Costs will be reserved to the full hearing. Thank you very much, Mr Cooray. Thank you very much, Mr Patel.