Luiz Paulo Pereira Campos, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A challenge to cancellation of immigration leave on the ground of illegal working is determined by conventional public-law principles, including Wednesbury rationality. The court assesses the totality of the evidence available to the decision-maker and need not resolve every factual dispute or require every possible line of enquiry to be pursued.

Procedural fairness is context-dependent. Where an allegation may result in detention, removal and criminal liability, fairness generally requires disclosure of the gist of the allegation and a reasonable opportunity to respond before cancellation. A signed interview record, interpretation and a further opportunity to make representations may satisfy that requirement. The absence of conclusive evidence of an administrative caution does not automatically invalidate the decision.

The claimant, a Brazilian national, entered the United Kingdom as a standard visitor with six months’ leave and no permission to work. Immigration officers later found him at premises containing a motorcycle, delivery-driver equipment and a Deliveroo application on a mobile phone. His leave was cancelled on the ground that he was working in breach of its conditions, and he was detained pending removal.

He sought judicial review of the cancellation and detention decisions, alleging irrationality and procedural unfairness. Permission was retrospectively granted for the irrationality ground. The central issues were whether the cancellation decision was irrational or procedurally unfair, and whether the detention consequently lacked a lawful basis.

1. Claim dismissed. The cancellation decision was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. The detention challenge therefore also failed.
2. The appropriate approach to a challenge concerning cancellation of leave for illegal working was conventional public-law review, applying Wednesbury principles. The court was not required to determine every disputed fact as a precedent fact. It had to assess the totality of the evidence and the context in which it was obtained.
3. The immigration officers were entitled to consider cumulatively the motorcycle registration document, helmet, boots, gloves, Deliveroo clothing, the recently used Deliveroo application on the claimant’s phone, the photograph of the claimant with a motorcycle, his lack of a return ticket or independent means, and the implausibility and inconsistency of his explanations. They were not under a duty to interview other residents or pursue further corroborative enquiries.
4. Procedural fairness applied in the context of the serious allegation, which could lead to immediate detention and removal and could constitute a summary offence. The claimant was entitled to know the gist of the allegation and to have a reasonable opportunity to explain it. Those requirements were met through the interpreted interview, the questions concerning the evidence, the signed interview note and the further opportunity to respond to the section 120 notice.
5. There was no conclusive evidence whether an administrative caution had been given. The court held that the absence of such evidence did not, viewed in the round, make the decision unfair. The case did not involve reliance on an uncautioned admission of illegal working, and the claimant had been informed of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond.
6. Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was not relied on as an alternative basis for refusing relief and, given the high threshold and need to avoid speculation, was not applied.
7. Because the cancellation decision was lawful, the detention was lawful on the only basis relied upon. The claim was dismissed. Costs were adjusted to reflect the defendant’s late disclosure and unsuccessful post-hearing evidence application.

First-instance judicial review claim. No prior decision under appeal was stated.