New Judgment: R (ZO (Somalia) & Ors) v SSHD  UKSC 36
29 Thursday Jul 2010
On appeal from:  EWCA Civ 442
The Secretary of State appealed to allow applications for judicial review brought by the respondent asylum seekers against her decision to refuse them permission to work. Appeal dismissed. “An application for asylum” in Directive 2003/9 had to include a subsequent application made after an original application had been determined, and “asylum seeker” was to be construed accordingly to include a person who made such a subsequent application. There was no doubt that subsequent applications came within the definition of application in Directive 2005/85 art.2. Subsequent applications were mentioned throughout that directive and its scheme was workable only if the definition covered repeat applications. The definition in Directive 2003/9 art.2 was virtually identical to that in Directive 2005/85. Had Directive 2003/9 not been intended to cover subsequent applications, it was surprising that the same definition had been used and that Directive 2003/9 had not made it unequivocally clear that they would not be covered.