Mamode Rafick Peerbocus v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Publisher | United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority |
| Author | Immigration Appeal Tribunal |
| Publication Date | 12 February 1987 |
| Citation / Document Symbol | [1987] Imm AR 331 |
| Cite as | Mamode Rafick Peerbocus v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1987] Imm AR 331, United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority, 12 February 1987, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_AIT,3ae6b66010.html [accessed 17 September 2023] |
| Disclaimer | This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. |
MAMODE RAFICK PEERBOCUS v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
[1987] Imm AR 331
Hearing Date: 12 February 1987
12 February 1987
Index Terms:
Deportation order -- when a deportation order comes into force -- whether that is the date on which it is signed or the date when it is enforced. Immigration Act 1971 Sch 3, para 1: Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 r11(4).
Held:
A deportation order was signed in respect of the appellant on 9 December 1981; it was not enforced; by the deportation of the appellant until 12 June 1984. When application was made for the revocation of the order that was refused. The application was considered on the basis that three years had not elapsed since the order was enforced. Held: A deportation order, on a true interpretation of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act and procedure rule 11(4) was in force from the day it was signed. It was irrelevant that it was not enforced until a later date.Cases referred to in the Judgment:
No cases are referred to in the determination.Counsel:
S Choudhury of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service for the appellant; D Wilmott for the respondent PANEL: DL Neve Esq (President), GW Farmer Esq (Vice-President), IP Allnutt Esq OBEJudgment One:
THE TRIBUNAL: The appellant is a citizen of Mauritius who applied to the Secretary of State to revoke a deportation order which had been made against him. His application was refused. He appealed to an adjudicator against the refusal. His appeal was heard by Air Vice-Marshal RC Ayling, CB, CBE and was dismissed on 13 August last. Against the adjudicator's determination the appellant appeals to the Tribunal. The deportation order in question had been signed by the Secretary of State on 9 December 1981. However the appellant could not be traced until 1984. He was deported on 12 June 1984. The application fell to be considered under paragraph 171 of HC 169, the last sentence of which reads as follows:"All applications for revocation will be carefully considered when made but save in the most exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State will not revoke a deportation order which has been in force for less than 3 years."
The notice of refusal in this case reads:"You have applied for revocation of the deportation made against you on 9 September 1981 and implemented on 12 June 1984 but the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the order has been in force for 3 years or more or that there are most exceptional circumstances in your case."
The Home Office appeared to have considered -- and it was a view which was upheld by the adjudicator -- that the deportation order had not been "in force" until the appellant was actually removed from this country -- that is to say on 12 June 1984. The parties have agreed, and it is also the Tribunal's view, that this was an error. A deportation order is "in force" as soon as it is signed. This is apparent from a consideration of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 and from Rule 11(4) of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984. It follows that in considering the appellant's application the Secretary of State exercised his discretion upon an erroneous basis. The parties have therefore agreed that this appeal should be remitted to the adjudicator for re-determination in accordance with these remarks, and Mr Wilmott on behalf of the Home Office undertook that, if the refusal should be maintained, an additional Home Office statement would be submitted setting out the reasons therefore.