- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Khan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant entered the United Kingdom illegally on 1 January 1998 and remained continuously since then. Due to the nature of his entry, he lacked travel documents confirming his date of arrival. Over time, he was represented by four different firms of solicitors. In 2002, an application for a work permit was made on his behalf by his sponsoring employer, with the employer also acting as his landlord. The work permit application stated that from February 1998 to June 2001, the Appellant was employed as a chef in a hotel located in his country of origin, which, if accurate, contradicted his claim of continuous residence in the UK.
The Appellant applied on 2 July 2012 for leave to remain based on 14 years of continuous residence under the Immigration Rules. The Secretary of State refused this application on 12 March 2013, citing a lack of acceptable official evidence of residence in the UK from 1998 to 2001 and reliance solely on "word of mouth" evidence from neighbours and friends. The refusal also considered the Appellant's claim under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, applying immigration rules that came into force after the application was made.
The Appellant sought judicial review of the refusal on 11 June 2013, claiming entitlement to indefinite leave to remain based on long residence and that the refusal was unlawful. Permission to challenge the refusal was initially refused at various stages but eventually granted by the Court of Appeal in February 2015.
Subsequent to permission being granted, the Secretary of State applied to adduce further evidence, including a witness statement revealing that the purported employment in the country of origin during the relevant period was not substantiated by the hotel records. The Secretary of State also applied to set aside the grant of permission to appeal, alleging serious breaches of the duty of candour by the Appellant and his representatives, specifically that the Appellant had failed to disclose or explain material inconsistencies regarding his residence history. The Appellant opposed these applications and submitted that the Secretary of State should be debarred from defending the appeal due to procedural breaches.
At the hearing, the court admitted the further evidence, rejected the application to debar the Secretary of State, and reserved its decision on setting aside permission to appeal, ultimately concluding that permission to appeal should be set aside due to compelling reasons related to the Appellant's failure to provide a truthful and complete factual basis for his claim.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the nature and sufficiency of evidence required to support an application for leave to remain based on long continuous residence under the Immigration Rules?
- Does the Secretary of State err in law by restricting acceptable evidence to only "official" documents, excluding independent or informal evidence such as letters from neighbours and friends?
- Whether the Secretary of State properly considered the Appellant's human rights claim under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in light of the timing of the relevant Immigration Rules?
- Whether permission to appeal should be set aside due to the Appellant's failure to disclose material inconsistencies and breaches of the duty of candour in judicial review proceedings.
- Whether the Secretary of State should be debarred from defending the appeal due to procedural non-compliance in filing a skeleton argument.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant maintained continuous residence in the United Kingdom since 1998 despite the absence of official documentation for the early years due to the nature of his entry and employment.
- He challenged the Secretary of State's restriction to only official documents as evidence, arguing that independent and informal evidence such as letters from neighbours and friends should be considered.
- He contended that the Secretary of State erred in applying Immigration Rules that came into force after his application date when assessing his Article 8 human rights claim.
- The Appellant opposed the setting aside of permission to appeal, arguing there was no compelling reason and that the Secretary of State was aware of all material facts at the relevant times.
- He submitted that the Secretary of State should be debarred from defending the appeal due to failure to file a skeleton argument within the prescribed time.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Secretary of State argued that the Appellant’s application was fundamentally flawed because the 2002 work permit application indicated he was not in the UK continuously, undermining the basis for long residence.
- She maintained that official documents are reasonably required to substantiate residence, and that informal evidence such as letters from neighbours carry little weight.
- She submitted that the Appellant and his representatives were in serious breach of their duty of candour by failing to disclose or explain material inconsistencies, particularly the discrepancy between the work permit application and supporting letters.
- The Secretary of State applied to set aside the grant of permission to appeal on the basis of these breaches and the misleading nature of the evidence presented.
- She resisted the claim that she should be debarred for procedural breaches, arguing that other sanctions were more appropriate.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R (Bilal Mahmood) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKUT 00439 | Duty of candour and disclosure obligations on parties in judicial review proceedings. | Supported the court’s conclusion that the Appellant’s failure to provide a comprehensive witness statement and disclose material facts breached the duty of candour. |
| R (Sabir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1173 | Setting aside permission to appeal where counsel misleads the court or withholds material facts. | Distinguished from the present case but cited to illustrate the seriousness of misleading the court and justifying setting aside permission. |
| R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 3103 (Admin) | Obligation on claimants to ensure the court has the full picture when deciding permission applications. | Reinforced the court’s view that the Appellant and his representatives failed to meet their disclosure obligations. |
| R v Lancashire County Court, ex p. Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941 | Principle that judicial processes must be conducted with full disclosure ("all cards on the table"). | Applied to emphasize the duty of candour in judicial review proceedings. |
| R (Lawler) v Restormel BC [2007] EWHC 2299 (Admin) | Duty of proper disclosure in without notice injunction applications. | Used as guidance on the extent of disclosure and candour required in urgent applications, analogized to judicial review permission applications. |
| R (Awuka and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3298 (Admin) | Absolute duty of solicitors and counsel to disclose all points against relief in court submissions. | Supported the court’s strict approach to candour and disclosure obligations. |
| Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 428 | Applicants for ex parte relief must disclose all facts relevant for the judge’s decision. | Provided comparative authority on disclosure obligations, informing the court’s analysis. |
| Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others [2011] EWHC 1780 (Comm) | Obligation to disclose relevant material in a manner commensurate with its significance. | Referenced to underline the need for clear and effective disclosure. |
| JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2016] EWHC 248 (Ch) | Disclosure involves both relevant material and appropriate manner of disclosure. | Supported the court’s view on the quality of disclosure required. |
| Brinks Mat v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350 | Consideration of whether non-disclosure was innocent in injunction applications. | Used to assess whether failure to disclose was innocent or deliberate. |
| MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1192 | Assessment of Article 8 claims in immigration context. | Referenced in relation to the proper consideration of human rights claims under immigration rules. |
| EK (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1517 | Secretary of State’s ability to apply clear objective criteria in immigration decisions. | Referenced to acknowledge procedural context but distinguished from the error of law found regarding evidence. |
| ZH (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 8 | Nature of the 14-year long residence rule as an amnesty for unlawful residence. | Used to explain why official documentation may be lacking and why the Secretary of State’s restrictive approach was flawed. |
| R (Ganasabalan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2712 (Admin) | Requirement to consider exceptional circumstances under Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules. | Distinguished on facts; court found the Secretary of State’s consideration of Article 8 adequate in this case. |
| Singh and Khalid v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 74 | Effect of changes to Immigration Rules allowing consideration of new rules for applications made before their commencement. | Supported the court’s conclusion that the Secretary of State was entitled to apply the updated rules. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the evidence and procedural history in detail, focusing on the duty of candour owed by the Appellant and his representatives in judicial review proceedings. It found that the Appellant’s 2002 work permit application included an answer indicating he was employed outside the UK during a period critical to his claim of continuous residence, which contradicted letters submitted in support of his application for leave to remain.
The court emphasised that the Appellant and his legal representatives failed to disclose or explain this material inconsistency, despite being put on notice by the Secretary of State’s correspondence. The absence of a witness statement or explanation was critical, and the court inferred that the Appellant knowingly proceeded on a fundamentally false factual basis.
On the substantive issue of evidence, the court acknowledged that the Secretary of State’s initial position restricting acceptable evidence to official documents was an error of law. However, given the weight and quality of the evidence before the Secretary of State, the court found it inevitable that the application could not succeed due to the gaps and inconsistencies in residence evidence.
The court also considered the Secretary of State’s application of the Immigration Rules relating to Article 8 and concluded that the decision letter adequately addressed the private life claim. The application of rules introduced after the Appellant’s initial application was found to be lawful.
Regarding procedural matters, the court admitted the further evidence submitted by the Secretary of State and rejected the application to debar her from defending the appeal. It concluded that setting aside the grant of permission to appeal was justified because of the compelling reason arising from the Appellant’s failure to meet his duty of candour.
Holding and Implications
The court SET ASIDE the permission to appeal previously granted by the Court of Appeal, effectively preventing the substantive appeal from proceeding.
The direct consequence of this decision is that the Appellant’s challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal of leave to remain on the basis of long continuous residence is dismissed without determination on the merits. The court highlighted the importance of full and frank disclosure by claimants in judicial review proceedings and emphasized that failure to comply with this duty may justify setting aside permission to appeal.
No new legal precedent was established beyond reinforcing existing principles concerning the duty of candour and the nature of evidence acceptable to support long residence claims. The decision serves as a cautionary example against misleading the court and underscores procedural rigor in immigration judicial reviews.
Alert