UK case law
Leka v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2003] EWCA CIV 637 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division) · 2003
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
©Crown Copyright LORD JUSTICE WARD:
1. Nobody appears in this case. That is not entirely a surprise because counsel and solicitors have been courteous enough to keep the Office informed of the developments in this appeal. It seems that, after a change of counsel, the appellant's advisers have had to reconsider their position and, very wisely, have taken the view that they can no longer properly advance this appeal. I have a helpful note from Mr Rick Scannell of counsel carefully explaining his position, and I record my gratitude to him.
2. Very briefly, the position is this. The appellant, who is a young man from Kosovo, seeks to appeal against the order of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal notified on 4th July 2002 dismissing his appeal from the adjudicator's decision that he had no prospect of successfully appealing the Secretary of State's decision.
3. This is an appeal governed by paragraph 21 of the fourth schedule to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 . On an appeal to an adjudicator, the adjudicator must allow the appeal if he considers that the decision against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law. That is set out in paragraph 21(1) of the fourth schedule. But the important provision is in sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 21. That reads: “Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to paragraph 24 and to any restriction on the grounds of appeal.”
4. Here there are restrictions on the grounds of appeal. The only grounds upon which an appeal can be brought are the Refugee Convention grounds (see section 69(3) of the Immigration Appeals Act 1999) or the human rights grounds (see section 65 of that Act ). Mr Scannell realistically recognises that all the arguments he would wish to have advanced on legitimate expectation and failure to give reasons are not grounds which fall within that limitation.
5. The Home Secretary had decided that this young man should return to Kosovo when he obtained the age of 18 years, and that decision must stand. There is no other proper ground to be advanced, as is recognised, and accordingly in my judgment this appeal should be dismissed. LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH:
6. I agree. MR JUSTICE NEWMAN:
7. I also agree. Order: appeal dismissed.