R v. Special Adjudicator, Ex parte Shamamba

R v A SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR ex parte SHAMAMBA

Queen's Bench Division

[1994] Imm AR 502

Hearing Date: 14 June 1994

14 June 1994

Index Terms:

Bail -- refusal -- adjudicator not satisfied sums offered by sureties adequate -- whether sum required by adjudicator excessive -- comparison with sums required in other cases -- whether sums offered by sureties have to be "readily available". Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 r 23.

Held:

On an application for bail with sureties offering a total of @4,000, bail was refused by the adjudicator: he indicated that he would reconsider the application if sureties were offered of @15,000 and provided the sureties were "readily available". Leave to move for judicial review was sought on the basis that the sum demanded by the adjudicator was excessive and bore no relation to the sums required by other adjudicators in other immigration cases. It was also argued that the adjudicator had given no reasons for demanding such a large sum. Held 1. There was no tariff for what should be required by way of sureties: no comparison could be properly drawn between one case and another. One adjudicator, provided he acted properly, was entitled to come to a different view from another adjudicator in another case. 2. Adjudicators unlike magistrates, were under no obligation to give reasons in relation to the granting or refusing of bail. 3. However, it was not necessary for the sums offered by sureties to be "readily available"; it was open for the sums offered to be represented for example by equity in property.

Counsel:

M Hasan for the applicant; R Tam for the respondent PANEL: Popplewell J

Judgment One:

POPPLEWELL J: This is an application to judicially review the decision of the adjudicator to refuse bail on 18 May 1994. The applicant is an asylum seeker. He came into the country and immediately applied for asylum. At the hearing for bail before the adjudicator, sureties were offered in the sum of @4,000. There were two perfectly respectable sureties offered. Dr Hyman and Mr Spencer-Longhurst. For reasons which are immaterial, the Home Office official who was then appearing was not present during this hearing. The adjudicator took the view that it was not a suitable case for bail, but he would reconsider provided sureties of @15,000 were offered. Nobody saw fit there and then to ask the sureties whether they were willing to stand in that sum. The result is that these proceedings have been launched when it is perfectly possible that this applicant could have had bail if the sureties had been asked whether they were willing to stand bail in that sum. These proceedings have been launched on the basis that the sum of @15,000 is excessive. The solicitors acting for the applicant have sworn an affidavit saying that they have been involved in a number of other cases, and this sum is way above what is said to be the tariff. There is not a tariff in bail applications. The tribunal, whether it is a judge or an adjudicator, has to decide on the particular case what is the proper decision to be made as to whether bail should be granted and, if bail is granted, on what terms. It will vary from case to case. There is no tariff. The word should go out that an adjudicator, provided he acts properly, is perfectly entitled to come to a different view from another adjudicator in another case. In this case @4,000 was offered, and the learned adjudicator decided that that was not enough. The first surety offered @2,700 and the second @1,300. The first surety has a bank account showing that he has over @18,000. The second surety has a bank account showing that he has something like @1,900 and equity of a substantial amount in a property. I do not find anything that could possibly be described as perverse or irrational in the sum at which the adjudicator fixed bail. The only caveat I have is whether the suggestion which he undoubtedly made that that sum had to be readily available was a proper exercise of his judicial function. It is open to somebody to offer a surety which is equity in a house. In my judgment, however, this application wholly fails because nobody has taken the trouble to ask the sureties whether between them (which they are certainly financially capable of doing) they are willing to provide sureties in the sum which was suggested. Mr Hasan has made further submissions as to reasons and so on. I do not believe that it is necessary for a tribunal to give reasons about bail. Magistrates are required to do so; judges are not. In my judgment this application is not one which is capable of being successful. It is open to the applicant to make a further application, armed now with the sureties whom he already has. Accordingly, I shall dismiss this application.

DISPOSITION:

Application dismissed

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Andrews, Birmingham; Treasury Solicitor