A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Cha Su
either to the immigrant or his legal advisers as a matter of
course before giving directions for this removal.
There is no
express provision contained in the Act or in the rules or any
subordinate legislation requiring written notice to be given
or for reasons for a decision to be given when the decision
is confined to rejecting an application for asylum. This
situation has to be contrasted with the position in the case
of decisions which are appealable under the Act where regula-
tions made under Section 18 of the Act require written notice
to be given together with reasons for the decision. Hitherto
apparently the practice of the Home Office where a Member of
Parliament has intervened is set out in a letter to the Member
of Parliament the decision and the reasons for it but not to do
this in what may be the minority of cases where a Member of
Parliament is not involved, though in these cases normally
the independent Immigration Advisory Service would be informed
so that that Service could assist the applicant.
It is conceivable that because of the absence of an
express statutory provision requiring notice, the Home Office
is entitled to give directions for removal without first giving
the applicant notice of a decision on a pending application
for asylum. However we have no hesitation in saying that it
is highly undesirable that steps should be taken to remove
from this country someone who has made a bona fide application
for asylum without his first being informed of the result of.
his application. We are therefore pleased and relieved to
learn from Mr. Laws who, after taking instructions at our
invitation, was able to assure the Court that in future the
practice of the Home Office would be changed and notice in
writing of a decision would be given to the applicant before
12.