A
-B
C
D
Sand
E
G
H
directions were given for his removal.
Quite apart from the
need of such a notice in order to do justice to the applicant, it is important from the Court's point of view that a notice should be given. In the absence of a notice the Court will most likely be faced with an application for judicial review and if the applicant is able to indicate that as far as he is aware, no decision has been given upon his application for asylum, whatever may be the real merits of his application for judicial review, he will be likely to receive leave to move if it is not known whether a decision has been taken. Some of the cases before us were examples of this sort of situation. So far as
giving the applicant reasons for the decision, Mr. Laws did
not give any assurance to the Court. Again, we feel obliged to say that in our view it would be preferable, even if a Member of Parliament is not involved, that in a case of an application for asylum reasons for the decision to refuse an application
are given to an applicant. An immigrant may find it difficult to see the justification for taking one view where a Member of Parliament is involved and a different view where a Member
of Parliament has not been involved. Having regard to the importance of the decision, which has been made clear by the
House of Lords, it is surely desirable that before a course of action is taken against an individual which he contends could
endanger his life he is told why the action is being taken.
Short reasons are given when a person is refused entry as a visitor so how can it be right to give no reasons when a person is refused asylum? Again, in addition to the requirements of justice or fairness practical considerations indicate the
desirability of giving reasons. Reasons may prevent unmeritor- ious applications and, when made, if the Court knows the reasons for the decision then there is at least a real prospect of an
13.
Page 195Page 196