Case details
Summary
The Carltona principle permits a minister to accept responsibility for decisions taken by suitably authorised civil servants. The House held that immigration inspectors are Home Office civil servants and may be authorised to take initial decisions to serve notices of intention to deport in section 3(5)(a) cases. An adjudicator hearing an appeal under the Immigration Act 1971, as limited by the Immigration Act 1988 s.5, may only consider whether in law there is power to make the deportation order and not the propriety of the Secretary of State's administrative devolutions.
Factual background
The appeals were conjoined challenges to initial decisions to serve notices of intention to deport. Each appellant had been interviewed by an immigration officer and a notice of intention to deport was authorised by an immigration inspector. The Divisional Court quashed the decisions. The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State's appeals. The central issues were whether the Secretary of State could validly authorise immigration inspectors to make initial deportation decisions, whether the inspectors in fact made those decisions, and whether an adjudicator may review procedural propriety in view of the Immigration Act 1988 s.5 restriction.
Held
- Outcome: Appeals dismissed. The House affirmed the Court of Appeal and restored the Secretary of State's decisions (per Lord Griffiths, with whom Lords Keith, Brandon, Templeman and Ackner agreed).
- Authority to devolve: Per Lord Griffiths, the Carltona principle applies. Immigration inspectors are Home Office civil servants and may lawfully be authorised to take the initial decision to serve a notice of intention to deport in cases falling within section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971, subject to sensible limitations (e.g. not deciding cases in which they were personally involved). This devolvement does not conflict with statutory duties in Schedule 2. (See Lord Griffiths' reasoning; Lords Keith, Brandon, Templeman and Ackner concurred.)
- Status of immigration officers: The House rejected the submission that immigration officers are statutory office holders independent of the executive. They are civil servants appointed under Schedule 2 and act in accordance with instructions from the Secretary of State. This supports lawful devolution of the Secretary of State's functions to suitably graded inspectors. (Per Lord Griffiths.)
- Fact-finding on who decided: The evidence showed the inspectors personally decided to authorise service of the notices. The appellants offered no challenge to the inspectors' sworn affidavits. On that basis the factual complaint that immigration officers, not inspectors, decided must fail.
- Scope of adjudicator's review under Immigration Act 1988 s.5: The House followed the Court of Appeal in Reg v Secretary of State, Ex parte Malhi and held that s.5 confines an adjudicator to considering whether the facts establish a legal power to make the deportation order. The adjudicator cannot inquire into the propriety of administrative procedures or the internal delegation which are matters for judicial review in the High Court.
- Practical notes: The court expressed unease about decisions based solely on oral reports by telephone and suggested it would be preferable for decision-makers to have written reports and an opportunity for short detention to secure consideration. However, this concern did not invalidate the impugned practice in these cases.
- Order: Both appeals dismissed. Costs direction as recorded.
Appellate history
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the Secretary of State's appeals and granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords. (Reported at [1990] 2 W.L.R. 1195.)
- Divisional Court (Administrative Court): Granted orders of certiorari quashing the decisions to deport. (Reported at [1990] 2 W.L.R. 1195.)
- House of Lords: Heard the conjoined appeals and dismissed them, affirming the Court of Appeal. (This judgment: [1989] UKHL 3, delivered 18 October 1990.)
Key cases cited
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Cases citing this case
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.