London St Andrew's College, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A Tier 4 sponsor’s duties are not confined to the record-keeping and reporting matters listed in section 2 of the sponsor guidance. The guidance must be read sensibly, purposively and as a whole. It imposes a basic duty, before assigning a CAS, to satisfy the sponsor that the prospective student has both the intention and ability to undertake the proposed course.

The Secretary of State has a broad public-law-compliant discretion to revoke a sponsor licence where there are reasonable grounds for concern about compliance or a risk to immigration control. A pattern of invalid or questionable English-language test results may reasonably require the sponsor to provide evidence that allays suspicion that it failed to make proper assessments.

The appellant college held a Tier 4 sponsor licence and Highly Trusted Sponsor status. Following investigation of widespread fraud in ETS English-language tests, the Secretary of State suspended and then revoked its licence. The decisions relied principally on invalid or questionable TOEIC results among sponsored students, inadequate assessment of students’ ability and intention to study, and failures concerning academic progression and compliance with visa conditions.

McGowan J dismissed the college’s judicial-review claim in London St Andrews College v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4328 (Admin). Permission to appeal was granted on one issue only: whether paragraph 162(d) of Document 3 of the Tier 4 guidance had been misconstrued by treating “any of your duties” as extending beyond the duties listed in section 2 of that document.

1. Appeal dismissed. McGowan J correctly construed paragraph 162(d). The three guidance documents were intended to be read together. They were guidance, not statutory text, and had to be read sensibly, purposefully and holistically.

2. The section 2 list of record-keeping and reporting duties was not exhaustive. Document 3 itself required sponsors to support immigration control and to assess thoroughly each student’s intention and ability before assigning a CAS. Document 2 likewise required assessment of ability and satisfaction that the student intended and was able to follow the course. Accordingly, paragraph 162(d) encompassed that basic duty.

3. The Secretary of State had not imposed a free-standing duty to recruit only “good” students. Rather, poor-quality students could be evidence that the college had failed to carry out the required checks. A sponsor was not necessarily in breach because some students later failed, but had to make relevant assessments and refuse admission where a student did not or could not meet the requirements.

4. The construction point disposed of the appeal. In additional observations, the court endorsed the approach in R (Cranford College) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1090 (Admin): a significant number of invalid TOEIC results, coupled with failure to report inadequate English, can found reasonable suspicion of inadequate assessment and monitoring. The sponsor then bears the practical burden of allaying that suspicion with evidence. The college’s evidence did not do so.

5. Further, paragraphs 162(g) and 162(i) provided independently sufficient grounds on the facts. Even absent an established specified breach, the Secretary of State retained a broad residual power to revoke where reasonable, articulated and unallayed concerns showed that the sponsor could not be trusted to comply with its duties or support immigration control.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the college’s appeal and upheld the revocation of its Tier 4 sponsor licence: [2018] EWCA Civ 2496.

• High Court, Administrative Court: McGowan J dismissed the college’s claim for judicial review: [2014] EWHC 4328 (Admin).