ZS, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where a public authority commits itself to reconsidering a matter, that commitment gives rise to a public law duty to carry out the reconsideration. If no timetable is stated, the reconsideration must occur within a reasonable time, assessed in light of the urgency of the case and the authority’s practical circumstances.

A statutory scheme concerning a specified number of persons does not necessarily confer individual standing on every person who might fall within the wider class. Where representative proceedings will determine common issues, individual claims may properly be stayed to preserve orderly and manageable litigation.

The claimant was a 15-year-old unaccompanied Afghan refugee child living in France. He sought interim relief requiring admission to the United Kingdom and challenged the Secretary of State’s approach under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016.

The Secretary of State had previously rejected the claimant under screening criteria, but an official later undertook that she would consider the further evidence and submissions made on his behalf. Earlier procedural orders had refused interim relief, stayed the claim pending representative proceedings brought by Help Refugees Limited, and required disclosure.

The issues were whether a timetable could be imposed for the promised reconsideration, whether the stay should be lifted, and whether the claimant had standing to pursue individual issues concerning section 67 and the screening criteria.

1. Reconsideration. The Secretary of State’s email undertaking that she would consider the further evidence and submissions created a public law duty to do so. The absence of a specified timetable did not prevent the court from imposing one. The duty had to be performed within a reasonable time, taking account both of the claimant’s pressing circumstances and the Secretary of State’s substantial immigration workload. A written decision was therefore required by 3 March 2017.
2. Standing. The court provisionally rejected the proposition that section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 gave each child within the very large class of unaccompanied refugee children in Europe an individual capacity to bring such a claim. The court did not finally determine standing, because the issue would be better considered after the representative proceedings.
3. Stay and case management. The issues concerning the construction of section 67 and the lawfulness of the screening criteria would be fully argued in the Help Refugees proceedings. Allowing numerous individual claims to proceed in parallel risked making the litigation unmanageable. The stay was therefore maintained, with individual claims to be considered after final determination of the representative case.
4. Other relief. The disclosure order had already been complied with. The application to require immediate admission to the United Kingdom was not pursued and had no realistic prospect of success before the court.

This was a first-instance judicial review and interim-relief decision. Earlier orders in the same proceedings had refused interim relief, stayed the claim pending the Help Refugees proceedings, and directed disclosure. The present court maintained the stay, found that disclosure had been completed, and imposed a timetable for reconsideration.