Bhatti & Ors v Croydon Magistrates Court & Ors

In judicial review proceedings concerning search warrants and suspension of a licensed sponsor, the court held that a licensing authority may suspend a sponsor where independent accreditation has been suspended or where there is reason to believe that the sponsor seriously breaches its duties and threatens immigration control. Each ground was independently sufficient.

Judicial review is unsuitable for resolving extensive factual disputes about the execution of search warrants where a private law remedy is available. A narrow issue concerning whether occupiers were given a complete copy of the warrant, including the relevant schedule, was nevertheless suitable for judicial review because it raised a short point of wider importance.

The claimants challenged three decisions: the issue of search warrants by Croydon Magistrates' Court, the manner in which the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police executed them, and the suspension of the fourth claimant from the Tier 4 sponsor register by the Secretary of State.

Calvert-Smith J had granted permission concerning the suspension but refused permission concerning the warrants. The claimants renewed their applications concerning the warrants. The central issues were whether the suspension complied with the sponsor guidance and whether the warrant challenges were suitable for determination by judicial review.

1. Suspension of sponsor licence. The application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision was dismissed. Accreditation by the Accreditation Service for International Colleges was a prerequisite for inclusion on the sponsor register. The suspension of that accreditation was independently sufficient to justify suspension of the sponsor licence. The ongoing police investigation and arrests provided a further, independently sufficient basis under paragraph 526 of the sponsor guidance for believing that the College seriously breached its duties and posed a major threat to immigration control. The Secretary of State was entitled to rely on the accreditation body's independent decision, even if information from the enforcement branch had contributed to it.
2. The procedural challenge failed. The claimants were told the reasons for suspension and given 28 days to make representations. Adequate reasons had been provided. Reconsideration after the licensing inspection was not irrational because the inspecting officers had been unaware of the enforcement action, the DIUS suspension and the accreditation suspension. The claimants' failure to disclose those matters also weakened that complaint.
3. Issue of the warrants. Permission to challenge the magistrates' decision was refused. The court accepted that the issuing judge had to form an independent judgment that the statutory requirements were met, but found no realistic prospect of proving that he had failed to do so. The warrant identified the relevant section 8(3) conditions, and the summary evidence should be read sensibly.
4. Execution of the warrants. Permission to challenge the manner of execution was refused on the fact-heavy grounds. Judicial review was not an appropriate mechanism for resolving extensive factual disputes requiring cross-examination, where civil proceedings could determine the legality and extent of any excessive seizure. Permission was granted on one narrow ground: whether occupiers were entitled to see the warrant as issued, including the schedule identifying their premises, rather than receiving a document on which the address was written after entry. That issue was arguable and of wider importance.
5. The claimants were ordered to pay the Secretary of State's costs on the standard basis. No order was made concerning the police costs to that stage.

High Court (Administrative Court): Calvert-Smith J granted permission concerning the sponsor suspension and refused permission concerning the search warrants. The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review of the suspension, refused permission against the magistrates, and granted permission against the police on one limited ground.