Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Urmaza: QBD 23 Jul 1996

A deportee after a marriage was to be treated in the same way as others despite desertion from ship. The application of the Home Secretary’s discretion under the Policy was in issue. The case ‘raises a novel question about the extent to which departmental policy is amenable to judicial review’. ‘these legal controls upon the deployment of discretion and the implementation of policy demonstrate that the courts do not limit themselves to a bare rationality test … such cases, as authority demonstrates, are not limited to irrationality; they include cases where an international policy has been disregarded or misapplied by one or more of a Minister’s officials’. And ‘the modern approach to a departmental policy document’ by saying that ‘it follows that those cases in which the challenge has been predicated upon pure irrationality are illustrative but not exhaustive of the grounds of challenge’. Policies should be applied consistently: ‘ . . similar situations not to be treated differently and different situations not to be treated in the same way, unless such treatment is objectively justified.’


Sedley J


Times 23-Jul-1996, [1996] COD 479


Immigration Act 1971 11(5)


England and Wales

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.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87912