InfoMIE.net
Centre de Ressources pour les Mineurs Isolés Etrangers

Accueil > Actualités MIE > Actualités jurisprudentielles > High Court of Justice, Divisional Court, R (on the application of Help (...)

High Court of Justice, Divisional Court, R (on the application of Help Refugees Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2727, 2 Novembre 2017 - Amendement Dubs

Publié le : vendredi 3 novembre 2017

Voir en ligne : https://www.leighday.co.uk/LeighDay...

Source : High Court of Justice, Divisional Court

Date : 02 novembre 2017

Extraits :

« There is nothing in this which can show that the consultation process or the
consideration of the results was unlawful. All it shows is that, particularly when the
Calais camp closed, offers were made by those who previously had not made offers.
There is nothing surprising or untoward about that ; there will be, over time, offers
which contribute to the specified number which will not come forward because of
changed circumstances, acceptance of transfers, or arrival of UASC from other
sources. No deductions have been made for that. The specified number would
become a rolling, changing figure. Parliament required a single number to be
specified, not a rolling assessment.

[...]

We accept that the range of issues to be reviewed with those Governments is broad,
complex, and not to be underestimated. We are not prepared to hold that arrangements have not been made as soon as possible, for this is not something within the control of the UK Government. The relationships require some care. We see nothing to suggest that the UK Government is not doing all that sensibly it can. This ground of challenge must fail.

[...]
The process of deciding who should be transferred was not one to which normal considerations of procedural fairness could realistically apply. The claimant was seeking detailed written reasons, not just for a sense of fairness or transparency, but in order that the merits of a challenge could be assessed. It would be impractical to provide such detailed reasons for all those interviewed as potential transferees without making what was intended to be a speedy process, and which in Calais had to be operated quickly, pointlessly cumbersome.
Fewer than five individuals had been found ineligible for transfer because transfer
was not in their best interests. A short statement that an eligibility criteria had not
been met would not really add anything of value to the simple decision that there was to be no transfer. A successful challenge to an erroneous eligibility decision could not mean that the individual would necessarily be transferred. There was no provision for a formal challenge in the 2016 Act. »

Arrêt disponible en format pdf et en anglais ci-dessous :