See the enclosed case,Anufrijeva v SoS for the Home Department & Anor:2003 where the HoL decided that the effective date of the decision was the date that the decision was notified to the claimant and not the date that the decision was recorded on an internal departmental document. Hope this helps.
Immigration — Limited Leave to Enter — Application for Asylum — Application Given Limited Leave to Enter and Received Income Support Benefits — Asylum Claim Recorded As Determined by Refusal Without Applicant Being Notified — Benefits Terminated and Applicant Later Notified — Whether Entitlement to Benefit Determined — Whether Claim to Asylum Determined in Absence of Notification to Applicant — Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1967), Reg 70(3a)(B)(I) (As Inserted by Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/30), Reg 8R (Anufrijeva) V Secretary of State for the Home Department and AnotherHL: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote: 26 June 2003 A person ceased to be entitled to income support, for the purposes of reg 70(3A)(b)(i) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 only when his asylum claim was recorded by the Home Secretary as determined and he was notified of that decision.The House of Lords, Lord Bingham of Cornhill dissenting, so held when allowing an appeal by Nadezda Anufrijeva from the decision of Court of Appeal (Schiemann, Hale and Sedley LJJ) whereby, on March 200 they dismissed her appeal from Sir Christopher Bellamy QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, who on October 25, 2001 had dismissed her claim for judicial review of the decisions of (1) the Secretary of State for the Home Department to treat her asylum application as refused on 20 November 1999, being the date on which an internal departmental file note purported to record her claim as having been determined; and (2) the Secretary of State for Social Security to withdraw her income support benefit on 9 December 1999, without prior notification to her of the determination of her asylum application, or the reasons for it, or the service on her of any notice of refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom. The appellant, having claimed asylum in 1998 on arrival in the United Kingdom, was awarded income support as an asylum seeker. By reg 70(3A)(b)(i) (SI 1987/1967), as inserted, a person ceased to be an asylum seeker in the case of a claim which "is recorded by the Secretary of State as having been determined (other than on appeal) ...on the date on which it is so recorded." On 20 November 20, 1999 an official in the Home Office Integrated Casework Directorate noted on an internal file: "the reasons given in the letter aside ....refusal is appropriate. Case hereby recorded as determined..." Although benefit was stopped she was not notified of the asylum decision until on 25 April 2000, she was notified of refusal of her application for leave to enter and was sent "the letter aside" giving the reasons for refusal of her asylum claim.LORD STEYN said constitutional principle required an administrative decision which was adverse to an individual to be communicated to him before it could have the character of a determination with legal effect, thereby enabling him to challenge it in the courts if he so wished; and that as Lord Hoffmann had explained in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms <2000> 2 AC 115, 131, in the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, general statutory words could not override fundamental rights and would be presumed by the court as intended to be subject to them. Here Parliament had not legislated to such contrary effect; the decision in question, determining the appellant's status, involved a fundamental right, and in the contextual setting of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 395) which clearly envisaged notification of an adverse asylum decision, reg 70(3A)(b)(i) required that, before the Secretary of State's decision took effect, it should be communicated to the person affected by it; accordingly, the appellant was entitled to recover income support until proper notification of the determination on 25 April 2000.LORD HOFFMANN agreed, LORD MILLETT and LORD SCOTT delivered concurring opinions and LORD BINGHAM delivered a dissenting opinion. Appearances: Richard Drabble QC and Nicola Braganza ( instructed by Ole Hanson & Partners) for the appellant; John Howell QC and Dinah Rose (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the respondents. Reported by: Diana Procter, barrister.
|