On appeal from [2011] EWCA Civ 814

The case concerned the withdrawal of Deportation Policy 5/96 in December 2008. DP 5/96 introduced the general presumption that deportation would not normally proceed in cases where a child, either from birth or an early age had accumulated 7 years or more continuous residence in the UK. The introduction, revision and withdrawal of DP 5/96 was not laid before Parliament.

The central question in the appeal was whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as regarded the granting of concessions outside the immigration rules and of changes to it amounted to statements as to “practice to be followed” within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971, s 3(2), which would require her to lay such statements before Parliament.

The Court dismissed the appeal. The Court rejected the Secretary of State’s submission the source of concessionary policies was an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and found the source of concessionary policies to be the 1971 Act. However, DP5/96, being an amply flexible statement that a rule may be relaxed depending on all the circumstances of the case, is not a rule within the meaning of s 3(2) of the 1971 Act and the Secretary of State did not have to lay it before Parliament.

For Court’s press summary, please click here: Court’s Press Summary
For Judgment, please click here: [2012] UKSC 32
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII