The Koppers, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

In reviewing the revocation of a Tier 2 sponsorship licence, the court’s role is supervisory. The court must assess legality, procedural fairness and rationality, while respecting the Secretary of State’s experience and expertise in administering the sponsorship scheme.

A signed interview record may properly be relied upon where the interviewee had a fair opportunity to read it, correct it or add comments. The Secretary of State may rationally conclude that a sponsored worker’s actual role is inconsistent with the relevant SOC Code and Certificate of Sponsorship where the evidence shows substantial care work rather than the sponsored occupation. The claim was dismissed.

The claimant, a residential care home and Tier 2 sponsor, challenged the Secretary of State’s decision to revoke its sponsorship licence. The decision followed a compliance visit during which the sponsored employee and the claimant’s co-owner described duties involving care plans, feeding, hygiene, resident activities and training as a senior carer.

The claimant argued that the interview records were unreliable, that relevant matters concerning induction and the wider public relations role had been disregarded, and that irrelevant material had been considered. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to conclude that the employee’s role was substantially that of a senior care worker rather than a public relations officer.

1. Outcome. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The revocation decision was not unlawful.
2. Interview records. The Secretary of State was entitled to rely on the signed interview records. A compliance regime could not operate effectively if such records were incapable of reliance. Both interviewees had signed their records, and the claimant’s co-owner had expressly confirmed their accuracy. The compliance officer’s evidence that the records had been read and that an opportunity for clarification had been given was unchallenged. The court therefore accepted that evidence, applying the approach illustrated by R(McVey) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 437 (Admin).
3. Assessment of the role. The Secretary of State was entitled to assess the evidence as a whole. A public relations officer in a care home might need to understand the home’s activities and communicate about residents’ care. That did not mean that the role included providing care or nursing. The duties described in the interviews, including care planning, feeding, hygiene, resident activities and training as a senior carer, were substantially inconsistent with the public relations role in SOC Code 2472 and the Certificate of Sponsorship.
4. Judicial review standard. The sponsorship scheme involved substantial reliance on sponsors and required effective monitoring. The court accepted the principles stated by Silber J in R(Westech College) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 1484 (Admin), including respect for the expertise of the immigration authorities. The ordinary public law grounds remained applicable: illegality, procedural irregularity and irrationality.
5. The Secretary of State had considered the relevant evidence and had not relied materially on an irrelevant point concerning the deputy care manager’s role. It was rationally open to her to conclude that the sponsored employee’s role was substantially that of a senior care worker and inconsistent with both the applicable SOC Code and the Certificate of Sponsorship.

The judgment records that interim relief was granted on 21 May 2014. Permission was refused on the papers on 28 July 2014 but granted on oral renewal on 30 September 2014. The present judgment determined the substantive judicial review claim at first instance.