M v the Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 Feb 2003

The applicant had been given indefinite leave to remain in England, but was later convicted of indecent assault, and recommended for deportation. On appeal the court said that the order for deportation was disproportionate. After serving his sentence and on release. The respondent decided that he should be deported under the 1971 Act, but gave no reasons.
Held: Where a court had once considered the issues and decided that deportation would be wrong on the merits of the case, the Secretary of State must give appropriate weight to that decision when making his own. An administrative decision inconsistent with a decision of a court on the same issue and same material was permissible so long as it was properly explained: ‘ . . A duty owed by one decision-maker – A – to take account of the views or decision of another decision-maker – B – upon the same or an overlapping issue means nothing whatever unless A has to engage with what B has said: to explain, however shortly, why he differs from it he does.’


Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Ward


Times 03-Mar-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 146, Gazette 17-Apr-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1980




Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(a)


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Nazari CACD 1980
The CACD heard several appeals together, giving guidance as to the general principles to be applied in deciding on recommendations for deportation under the Act. Lawton LJ said that ‘no court should make an order recommending deportation without . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Dinc CA 15-Mar-1999
When deciding whether to order a deportation, the Home Secretary will have much material not before the courts, including as to conditions in the place to which the applicant might be deported), and he is better placed to take a wider policy-based . .

Cited by:

CitedIndependent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Immigration

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.179486