R (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; R (M) v Same [2005] 2 All ER 165; [2005] 1 WLR 1445
Immigration; judicial review
(263 words)
Facts
G and M were asylum seekers whose applications were refused by special adjudicators. They were also refused permissions to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, as were their applications to the High Court for judicial review of the tribunal’s decisions. Finally, their request to have the refusal of permission to appeal judicially reviewed was also rejected.
Issues
The claimants relied on s. 101(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in their application for review of the tribunal’s decisions.
Decision/Outcome
The 2002 Act, and s. 101 in particular, introduced a new system of statutory review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decisions to refuse to grant permission to appeal to it from an adjudicator. The intention was that this new system should be used in lieu of judicial review as this would accelerate proceedings. Should both judicial and statutory review be allowed, s. 101 would not have the finality it was intended to achieve. The intention to expedite asylum procedures was legitimate, however, judicial review could still be used but only if the statutory review procedure did not ensure the rights of those entitled to asylum. The statutory system adequately protected the rights of asylum seekers even though it did not provide a right to an oral hearing – in other words, the court was entitled to decline an application for judicial review in this case. While the claimants’ cases arguably involved rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, there is no general right to remain in the UK and the claimants were thus not discriminated against under Article 14 of the ECHR.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2004] EWCA Civ 1731 (reported at [2005] 1 WLR 1445). Readers should note, however, that the statutory and institutional framework described in the article has since been substantially replaced. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal was abolished by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, which created a new single-tier tribunal system. That structure was subsequently reorganised under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, with immigration and asylum appeals now heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Section 101 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which is central to this case, has been heavily amended and the specific statutory review mechanism it created no longer operates in its original form. The case therefore retains value as an illustration of the relationship between statutory and judicial review procedures, and of the courts’ approach to article 14 ECHR arguments in the immigration context, but it should not be relied upon as a guide to current procedural rules governing immigration appeals or judicial review of tribunal decisions.
