J
AUG.26 88 12:12 GMT HO 2 LUNAR HOUSE
A
C
F
·
#ither to the immigrant or his legal Advising as a matter of
There Le no
course bafore giving directions for this removal. expream provision contained in the Act or in the rules or any aubordinate 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 &973 m.
This situation has to be contrasted with the position in the Casa of decisions which are appealable under the Act where Sequla. tions made under Section 19 of the Act require written notior 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 Meaber 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 bons fide application for asylum without his first being informed of the result of his application. We are therefore pleased and ralieved to earn 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.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.