Matthew recently succeeded before the Vice President of the Court of Appeal in defending an application to appeal a decision to refuse permission to proceed to Judicial Review. Matthew was instructed on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The Claimant is an individual who has attracted considerable litigation and media attention over the last decade having been charged and sentenced for acting fraudulently and misleading his clients holding himself out as a barrister when he was not qualified.
The case has been reported in the National Archive and Bailli as Leonard Ogilvy, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 315
The appeal serves as a brief, yet useful, reminder for individuals who continue to suggest they are stateless (despite contrary decisions being made in the Immigration Tribunals), that the Secretary of State should eventually take matters into his own hands. Lord Justice Underhill, at paragraph 18, remarked that:
“in a case where a person liable to deportation is refusing to co-operate with his national authorities, a time may come when, if the Secretary of State wishes to continue to maintain that they are removable, he must take the initiative with the authorities of the foreign state in question and himself try to persuade them to issue emergency travel documents. If he succeeds, well and good, and deportation can proceed. But if he fails, he may have to face up to realities and consider whether to revoke the deportation order and grant some form of leave.”
This was set against a background where Home Office policy requires an Applicant to make genuine efforts to establish their nationality – see paragraph 15:
“I do not read the policy as obliging the Home Office to take any steps themselves unless and until the applicant had himself given a true and good faith account to the Nigerian authorities: the point of the policy is that in some cases an attempt by an applicant to obtain travel documents may need support or reinforcement by the UK authorities providing arguments and information that they would be peculiarly well-placed to advance. In other words, it is in support of an attempt by the applicant to get the necessary documentation.”
Matthew’s practice is predominately in Public and Private claims before the High Court relating to Judicial Review of Immigration decisions. He has extensive experience in this field and has been instructed on a number of matters before the Court of Appeal this year.
The Judgement can be read on the following links: