Manchester College of Accountancy & Management, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A sponsor licence may be suspended pending investigation and revoked where the evidence reasonably indicates breaches of sponsorship duties or a significant risk to immigration control. The decision-maker must give the sponsor notice of the principal concerns and a fair opportunity to respond before revocation. Fairness does not require disclosure of every piece of intelligence in advance where that intelligence is used to obtain independent corroboration and the material relied upon is put to the sponsor. The court’s role is supervisory. It does not substitute its own assessment for that of the immigration authorities, and intervention is justified only where the procedure is unlawful or the decision is irrational in the Wednesbury sense.

The claimant was a private educational institution holding a Tier 4 General Student Sponsor Licence. The Defendant suspended the licence on 14 February 2012 and revoked it on 2 April 2012 after compliance visits identified concerns about attendance records, non-enrolment reporting, compliance with a B-rating action plan, student assessment and reporting duties.

The claimant sought judicial review on grounds of unlawful reliance on the sponsor guidance, procedural unfairness and irrationality, and claimed damages. It accepted that the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (on the application of New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 51 defeated the first and third grounds, subject to a pending Supreme Court appeal. The central issue was whether the suspension and revocation procedure, and the conclusions reached on the evidence, were unlawful, unreasonable or unfair.

1. Outcome. The claim for judicial review failed. The decisions to suspend and revoke the sponsor licence were lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
2. The Defendant was entitled to suspend the licence in accordance with its published guidance while further enquiries were made. The claimant was told the five principal areas of concern and was invited to make written representations and provide evidence before the revocation decision.
3. There was no procedural unfairness in the use of information supplied by former employees. That information was used as intelligence to investigate possible falsification of attendance records. The Defendant obtained independent corroboration during the compliance visit, including evidence from a tutor, discrepancies between attendance registers and inconsistencies in the claimant’s records. The material relied upon in the revocation decision was therefore not dependent solely on undisclosed allegations.
4. The Defendant was entitled to conclude that the claimant was not properly monitoring attendance. It was also entitled to find that the claimant had failed promptly to report students who did not enrol, had not effectively maintained up-to-date student contact details within the action-plan period, had not adequately assessed student ability before assigning confirmations of acceptance for studies, and had not complied with mandatory reporting duties.
5. The claimant’s explanations, including that some failures were isolated or did not result in immigration abuse, did not justify breaches of the sponsor duties. Subsequent enrolment or completion of a course did not remove the obligation to report non-enrolment or other significant changes within the prescribed period.
6. The challenge on Wednesbury grounds had no merit. The court’s function was supervisory, and the Defendant’s conclusions were supported by the evidence and consistent with its stated policy and guidance.