A decision at Senior Executive Officer level was accepted as appropriate in a deportation case. There was an express form of delegation, and acts of the immigration officers required to be regarded as the acts of the Home Secretary.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘it would not be right to authorise an inspector to take a decision to deport in any case upon which he had been engaged as an immigration officer, for to do so would be too much like asking a prosecutor to be judge in the same cause’.
It is a pre-condition to the exercise of the power to detain under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 that the notice of the decision to make a deportation order is served on the person to be deported.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘It is well recognised that when a statute places a duty on a minister it may generally be exercised by a member of his department for whom he accepts responsibility: this is the Carltona principle. Parliament can of course limit the minister’s power to devolve or delegate the decision and require him to exercise it in person.’
Judges:
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner
Citations:
[1991] 1 AC 254, [1989] UKHL 3, [1990] UKHL 11, [1990] 3 All ER 393, (1991) 3 Admin LR 393, [1990] 3 WLR 797, (1991) 3 Admin LR 393,
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works CA 1943
Ministers May Act through Civil Servants
The plaintiffs owned a factory which was to be requisitioned. They sought a judicial review of the lawfulness of the order making the requisition, saying that the 1939 Regulations had been implemented not by the Minister as required, but by an . .
Adopted – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Malhi CA 1990
Parliament would not have intended to give an adjudicator powers to review the decisions of the respondent which were co-extensive with those of a court in a judicial review since this would simply cause duplication. On the true construction of . .
At Divisional Court – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Oladehinde Admn 1990
The Home Secretary authorised certain officials in the immigration department of the Home Office to act on his behalf to decide whether to issue a notice of intention to deport persons under the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The court granted . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Oladehinde CA 2-Jan-1990
The Court allowed appeals against a decision quashing decisions for the deport the applicants: there was no legal impediment to the Home Secretary authorising immigration inspectors to take the decision to deport immigrants who are in breach of . .
Cited by:
Cited – National Association of Health Stores and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Department of Health CA 22-Feb-2005
Applications were made to strike down regulations governing the use of the herbal product kava-kava.
Held: The omission of any transtitional provisions had not affected anyone. Nor was the failure to consult as to the possibility of dealing . .
Cited – Beggs v Scottish Ministers HL 7-Feb-2007
The claimant, a serving prisoner, had sought to sue the prison authorities for the conditions in which he was kept. He complained that his correspondence with his lawyers had been unlwafully opened by the prison. Repeatedly, undertakings were given . .
Cited – Castle v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 24-Jan-2014
The defendant appealed from his conviction for having driven in excess of a variable speed limit on the motorway. He said that the Order under which the speed limit had been imposed was irregular. . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Cited – Adams, Regina v (Northern Ireland) SC 13-May-2020
Secretary of State alone to consider confinement
The appellant had been detained under an Interim Custody Order (ICO) during internment during the troubles in Ireland, and then convicted of attempting to escape and escaping. He now appealed from that conviction saying that the order under which he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Administrative
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.200648
