Mersin, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a citizen of Turkey, arrived in the United Kingdom on 29 August 1992 and claimed asylum upon arrival. The Respondent refused the asylum application in July 1997, with formal refusals served on 13 August 1997. The Applicant appealed to the Special Adjudicator, who allowed the appeal following an oral hearing on 2 February 1999, with the determination promulgated on 29 March 1999. The Respondent did not appeal the decision, and the time for appeal expired. However, the formal grant of refugee status and indefinite leave to remain was delayed, with refugee status granted only on 30 September 1999 and leave to enter granted on 13 November 1999. The Applicant initiated judicial review proceedings on 9 November 1999 seeking mandamus to compel the Respondent to grant refugee status and damages for delay. By the time of the hearing, the Applicant had been granted refugee status and leave to remain, and the claim for damages was disavowed. The Applicant sought a declaration of unlawful delay and an injunction requiring periodic reporting by the Respondent on compliance with duties to expeditiously process successful asylum appeals. The court considered the procedural background, the administrative delays, and the appropriateness of relief sought.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Secretary of State (Respondent) has a duty to give effect to the Special Adjudicator’s determination granting asylum without unreasonable delay.
2. Whether the delay in granting refugee status and indefinite leave to remain to the Applicant constituted unlawful delay or breach of duty.
3. Whether the court can grant mandamus or an injunction requiring the Secretary of State to report periodically on compliance with duties to process successful asylum appeals expeditiously.
4. The extent to which administrative resource constraints and organizational decisions affect the lawfulness of delays in granting refugee status.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Secretary of State has a duty to give effect to the Special Adjudicator’s decision once upheld and not appealed.
• The delay of over seven months for ministerial acts to grant refugee status was unreasonable and unlawful.
• Delays caused significant prejudice to the Applicant, including inability to travel, delay in acquiring settled status and citizenship, housing difficulties, and adverse social security consequences.
• Administrative difficulties or resource shortages do not excuse unlawful delays in performing statutory duties.
• The Respondent should be required to report periodically to the court on compliance with duties to process successful asylum appeals expeditiously.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Special Adjudicator’s determination is only part of the decision-making process; the Secretary of State retains discretion to refuse asylum if material circumstances change.
• There is no absolute duty to immediately implement the adjudicator’s decision without further consideration.
• Delays were caused by administrative procedures and resource constraints, not deliberate refusal or improper purpose.
• The organization of work through a multi-functional directorate without priority for successful appellants was a considered decision advised by management consultants.
• The court should not interfere with administrative discretion unless it is irrational; resource shortages and administrative pressures justify the delays.
• Ministers are accountable to Parliament, not the courts, and it would be inappropriate for the court to impose ongoing reporting requirements.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that the Special Adjudicator’s determination, once not appealed, creates a clear duty on the Secretary of State to grant refugee status absent changed circumstances. The court rejected the Respondent’s argument that the adjudicator’s decision was merely a stage in the process, emphasizing that ignoring or delaying the ruling without appeal undermines the rule of law.

The court acknowledged that no fixed statutory time limit exists for implementing the adjudicator’s decision but held that the Secretary of State must act within a reasonable time considering the nature of the duty and the impact on the Applicant.

The delays in this case, totaling over seven months for essentially clerical acts, were found to be unlawful. The court identified that a significant cause was the Respondent’s organizational choice to treat successful appeals with no priority, resulting in unacceptable delays exacerbated by resource shortages and administrative failings.

While recognizing the severe pressures on the Respondent’s department, the court held that administrative convenience does not justify unlawful delay where established rights are at stake. The court also distinguished this case from others by noting the Applicant had an established right to refugee status requiring prompt implementation.

The court declined to grant the Applicant’s requested injunction or mandamus requiring periodic reporting, reasoning that such relief would improperly interfere with the Respondent’s discretion and the constitutional role of Parliament in holding Ministers to account.

The court noted ongoing reforms and improvements in administrative procedures but declined to rule on their lawfulness due to insufficient evidence.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Respondent had unlawfully delayed in granting the Applicant refugee status and indefinite leave to remain.

DECLARATION was granted that the delay in implementing the Special Adjudicator’s determination was unlawful.

The court refused to grant an injunction or mandamus compelling periodic reporting by the Respondent on compliance with duties to expeditiously process successful asylum appeals.

The decision directly affects the parties by recognizing the Applicant’s right to timely grant of refugee status and condemning the administrative delays. No new precedent beyond the application of established principles was set, and the court emphasized the importance of administrative reform and proper resource allocation to avoid similar unlawful delays in future cases.