The court considered a provision requiring refusal of leave to enter if there was no entry clearance.
Held: Such a mandatory rule was intra vires, the Secretary of State retaining a discretion outside the 1971 Act. Glidewell LJ said: ‘immigration was formerly covered by the royal prerogative and it was a matter which lay entirely within the exercise of that prerogative. Much of the prerogative powers vested in the Crown in this field have now been superseded by a statute but there remains-and this is what the royal prerogative is-a residual power in the Crown, through Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Home Affairs, to exercise such residual power as is necessary for the proper control of immigration.
In my view, the exercise of discretion in relation to leave to enter outside the rules is an exercise of the remaining part of that prerogative power’
Judges:
Glidewell LJ, Schiemann J
Citations:
[1987] Imm AR 278
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Disapproved – Munir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimants were subject to deportation, but had settled here and begun a family. An earlier concession would have allowed him to stay, but it was withdrawn. The court was now asked whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Constitutional
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.462963