Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] All ER (D) 94 (Feb), [2014] EWCA Civ 88
Section 96(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was directed to material that could have been raised, but had not been, on an actual or possible appeal against an earlier decision. On an appeal, the appellant relied upon his grounds of appeal and upon his evidence in support of such grounds. It was not surprising, therefore, to find that if a person had failed to appeal or had lost an appeal, he should not be permitted to adduce evidence that he could have relied upon on such an appeal, but had not.
Sub-sections (1) and (2) of s 96 of the Act dealt with different subjects and it was not surprising that Parliament should have used a flexible word such as “matter” to encompass the different material that might have been relied upon in each case. Nor was it surprising that when enacting the amended s 96 it had moved away from the word “ground” and had not re-enacted s 96(3) as originally drafted. It would have
