TNAG-1796-FCO40-2556-Hong-Kong-Vietnamese-refugees-repatriation--including-Opera-1988 — Page 194

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.