Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Vanuatu Law Reports

Coombe v Minister of Home Affairs [1983] VULawRp 3; [1980-1994] Van LR 74 (26 March 1983)

[1980-1994] Van LR 74

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

Appeal Case No. 1 of 1983

BETWEEN:

CHRISTINE ELIZABETH COOMBE
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
Respondent

Coram: The Honourable Mr Justice J. Jones
The Honourable Mr Justice L. Cazendres

Counsel: Mr D Hudson, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr W. Kattan, Counsel for the Respondent

Miss D. Toulet, Interpreter
Miss J.R. Walsh, Chief Registrar

JUDGMENT

[ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - IMMIGRATION - application for leave for Order of Certiorari]

This is an appeal from the refusal of the Chief Justice in Chambers to give leave for an Order of Certiorari to issue.

The decision complained of was an executive decision made under section 17 of the Joint Regulations, it is an order of deportation of Mrs C. Coombe, stated to be for security reasons. Section 17 states that no reason need be given for such order, and that it "...shall not be challenged in any Court in any proceedings whatever."

This seems clear enough but Mr Hudson submits that it is within the jurisdiction and duty of the courts to ensure that the powers given by the section are not used unconstitutionally. He submits that the probable reason for the order was not 'security' but anger at certain articles critical of the government contained in issued of the "Voice of Vanuatu" of which Mrs Coombe is a director and editor and manager.

Mr Hudson cites R v Brixton Prison (Governor) ex parte Soblen (1962) 3 All E.R. 641 where the duty of the courts to prevent misuse of ministerial powers restrictive of the human rights is asserted, despite prohibitions of judicial review contained in the relevant law. In that case the difficulties of an applicant for relief are well described and understood. Yet, despite this the appeal was refused. The facts in that case were, it seems to us, on a par with the facts in the present case: Soblen was being deported to America when extradition was not possible because the offence for which he was wanted in America was non-extraditable. The grounds given for the order were that his presence in Britain was not deemed to be for the public good. But why to America? A case, one might think, for review. Yet the appeal was dismissed.

In the present case we can recognise that a view might be taken that this deportation was to gag the 'Voice of Vanuatu'. But there is not a lot of evidence to support that view, only belief. The reason given for the order "security" is wide. We do not think it allows the court, in these circumstances, to act contrary to the strict wording of action 17 of the Joint Regulations.

We find that the Chief Justice in Chambers was right to refuse the order. Appeal dismissed.

Dated at Vila this 26th day of March 1983.

L. CAZENDRES
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE

J. JONES
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE