FP (Iran) V. Secretary of State for the Home Department Case Study

FP (Iran) V. Secretary of State for the Home Department - Case Study Example The brief facts of the case, FP (Iran) V. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2007), is that the Appellant, an asylum seeker, had initially filed an appeal,through counsel, against the Home Office's rejection of her claim for asylumWith the advent of civilisation and the law making process, it has been the endeavour of man to ensure that Rule of Law prevails in all decisions made in disputes. Judges have accepted time and again that just as everybody has certain rights that are subject to prevailing laws, so also all officials upholding the law have a responsibility to ensure that they shall not commit any act without proper justification. Administrative Law is a set of governing principles that form a part of public law that ensures the fair and reasonable implementation of the laws enacted by the Parliament The main principle of Administrative Law is that all actions on the part of the Government must be legal and if it is not then the public must have a remedy against such illegal action (Kuttner, 2007).Prior to discussing the importance of the present case in the development of Administrative Law, it is important to understand the facts of the case. The brief facts of the case, FP (Iran) V. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2007), is that the Appellant, an asylum seeker, had initially filed an appeal, through counsel, against the Home Office's rejection of her claim for asylum, before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (henceforth referred to as AIT). The AIT held that the said appeal was not valid giving error of law as the reason for its decision. A rehearing was fixed and notice of the same was sent to the last known address of the Appellant. However, the Appellant having shifted residence did not get the notice and was not present during the hearing. From the perusal of the judgement, it is apparent that the Appellant had had informed her solicitors of this change and they had in turn informed the Home Office. However, neither the app ellant nor her solicitors had informed the AIT. The Judge on finding the Appellant absent went on to hear the appeal on the premise that the notice had indeed been properly served as per the rules. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that there was discrepancy in the evidence presented by the Appellant, which has not been clarified. The Judge further held that the absence of the Appellant for the rehearing showed a lack of interest in the case and hence could not be upheld. The main question that the Judges in this present case faced was whether the Appellant can be held responsible for the actions or inactions of his or her lawyers. In this case, the Appellant had to pay the price for her lawyer's failure to inform the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal about the change of address, which resulted in the Appellant not being informed about the hearing leading to her absence and ultimately dismissal of appeal. Given this factual background, it is very clear that certain basic principles of law have been violated by the AIT while deciding this case. Rule of law implies that all decisions made by any Court should be fair, efficient and speedy. This concept has been taken in its literal meaning by the AIT even in the arena of rule making without any thought towards the conflict that could arise while implementing the rules. The judgement in the present case deals with the different aspects of administrative law as reflected in this case and how each aspect has been affected and the resulting judgement or opinion of the judges. Analysis and Assessment of Judgement 1.Fairness The first point that the judgement discusses is whether the provisions embodied in the Statute and rules there under are fair or not. According to the judgement, various changes are proposed in the law governing such cases based on the fact that the existing rules and principles are inadequate to fairly deal with such cases. Prior to understanding the