San Michael College Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A licensing authority may consider the whole factual history when deciding whether to suspend or revoke a sponsor licence. Reinstatement subject to an action plan does not prevent reliance on earlier events that were previously unknown to the authority. Evidence of undeclared students and poor attendance may legitimately support an assessment that a sponsor lacks robust procedures, even where a particular attendance threshold is not itself a reporting requirement. A discretionary revocation decision is reviewable for error of law or irrationality, not by substituting the court’s view for that of the decision-maker.

San Michael College Ltd operated a Tier 4 sponsor licence for overseas students. After earlier downgrading and suspension, the licence was reinstated in June 2010 subject to a B rating and an action plan. Following inspections and analysis of information supplied by the college, the Secretary of State suspended and then revoked the licence.

The college sought judicial review, arguing that the Secretary of State had relied impermissibly on historic matters, had failed to substantiate an allegation concerning undeclared visa letters, and had wrongly relied on an 80% attendance figure. The central issue was whether the revocation decision was unlawful, irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable.

1. Historic matters. The Secretary of State was entitled to consider all the circumstances when deciding whether to suspend or revoke the licence. Reinstatement subject to an action plan did not preclude reliance on events occurring before the plan where the relevant information had not previously been available. The action plan itself contemplated later attendance monitoring and analysis.
2. Undeclared students. The allegation was one of serious record-keeping inadequacy, not deception. The Secretary of State was entitled to rely on its records and the supporting evidence concerning students from New Delhi, China and Manila. It was open to infer that a large number of students had not been declared and that this demonstrated serious failings in the college’s records.
3. Attendance. The applicable reporting obligation concerned ten consecutive expected contacts, rather than a specific 80% attendance threshold. Nevertheless, the 80% figure was legitimately considered as evidence relevant to whether the college had robust procedures for assessing students’ intentions and credibility. It was not included among the three stated reasons for revocation.
4. Review and outcome. Revocation was a discretionary decision. In the absence of an error of law, the court could intervene only if the decision was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable. The decision letter was reasoned and addressed the college’s representations. The application for judicial review was refused.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review decision. The claim was issued on 29 October 2010, and permission and interim relief restoring the college to the register were granted by Judge Langan QC on 16 November 2010.