AC-2024-LON-000883 - [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin)

Mr Armstrong emphasised the historical context in which SIAC’s various review powers were introduced. Sections 2C-2D were inserted into the SIAC Act by section 15 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 with effect from 25 June 2013. Mr Armstrong cited paragraph 119 of the Explanatory Notes to the Justice and Security Act to the effect that the purpose of introducing sections 2C-2D was to enable SIAC to use a closed material procedure that would not be available in ordinary judicial review proceedings.

We do not regard the Explanatory Notes as enlightening in relation to costs. By conferring jurisdiction on SIAC, Parliament intended that challenges to immigration decisions made on the basis of sensitive material may be determined on consideration of all the material underpinning the decision, including the sensitive material. By virtue of its specialist constitution, SIAC is apt to undertake that task. It does not follow that Parliament intended that proceedings in SIAC should mirror proceedings in the Administrative Court in relation to costs.

Section 2E of the SIAC Act was inserted by section 18 of the Immigration Act 2014 with effect from 6 April 2015. We have received no Parliamentary material about it.

Section 2F was inserted by section 77(2) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 with effect from 28 June 2022. Mr Armstrong’s skeleton argument cited the Lord Commissioner of the Treasury, Craig Whittaker MP, who (we were told) introduced what is now section 77(2) for the Government during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons. The Lord Commissioner said that the new provision would “ensure that the JR can be heard before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.” It cannot realistically be maintained that this brief remark demonstrated a Parliamentary intention that section 2F should contain a costs power. We were not given proper details of anything else in relation to the history of the review provisions that may assist Mr Armstrong’s case.