10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Cases referred to in opinionsAdams v Naylor (1946) 2 All ER 241, (1946) AC 191, (1991) 2 wlr 994. HL.Or permitting M to be removed from the United Kingdom to Zaire in breach of anundertaking given by counsel for the <strong>Home</strong> Office to Garland on 1 May 1991 thahe would not be so removed pending an adjourned application for leave to movefor judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of state refusing him leave toenter the United Kingdom on the ground of political sylum and/ or (2) failing toprocure the return of M on 2 or 3 May 1991 in breach of the order of Garland Imade on 2 May reguiding such return. The Court of Appeal found Mr Baker, asSecretary of State, was in contempt of court by reason of his personal decisionon 2 May 1991 to cancel the return flight of M to the United Kingdom. M crossappealed.The facts are set out in the opinion of Lord Wolf.Stephen Richards, Richard Gondorn and staurs Gauhpole (instructed by theTreasury Solicitor) for the <strong>Home</strong> Secretary.Sydney Kentridge QC, Richard Scanndly and Authon Bradley (instructed byWinstanley-Burgess) for M.Their Lordships took time for consideration.22 July 1993. The following opinions were delivered.LORD KEITH OF KINKEL. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading indraft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf. Iagree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal, whilesubstituting the Secretary of State for <strong>Home</strong> Affairs for Mr Baker Personally asthe subject of the finding of concempt.538

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!