R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Bakhtaur Singh

Immigration - Deportation: HL (Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Brightman, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Goff of Chieveley): 26 June 1986
On 26 September 1979 the applicant, a citizen of India, entered the UK under a work permit valid for one week. Subsequently his period of leave was extended until the end of November 1979, but an application before the leave expired for an extension for a further six months to remain as a priest and music teacher was refused. The applicant nevertheless remained in the UK.
On 1 February 1983 the Secretary of State decided to deport him under s. 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. The applicant appealed under s. 15, but the adjudicator dismissed the appeal in which he directed himself that the applicant's value to the Sikh community was not a relevant consideration for an appellate tribunal. On the refusal of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to grant leave to appeal the applicant applied for judicial review. Hodgson J quashed the tribunal's decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the tribunal's appeal.
The applicant appealed.
Ian Macdonald and Frances Webber (instructed by Karim Laxman) for the applicant. John Laws (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the tribunal.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said that the question at issue turned upon the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 66 of 1982), paras 154 to 158. Counsel for the tribunal sought to uphold the direction that the adjudicator had given himself on the footing that where deportation of an individual would be detrimental to third parties other than the deportee's family (whose loss would fall within the scope of 'compassionate circumstances'), that was a factor which the Secretary of State might weigh in the balance in deciding for or against deportation but which the applicable rules excluded from consideration by the appellate authorities. This submission necessarily rested on two propositions (i) that the first sentence of para 154 was the governing provision of the rules which restricted the ambit of paras 156 to 158 by necessary implication, (ii) that in considering third party interests relevant to the exercise of his discretion, the Secretary of State would be departing from the rules. His Lordship could not accept either of those propositions. The question what weight was to be attributed to third party interests of the kind discussed was entirely a matter for the Secretary of State or the appellate authorities exercising discretion under the statute and must depend upon all the other relevant circumstances in the context of which the decision fell to be made.
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Brightman, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Goff of Chieveley concurred.
Appeal allowed. (WLR)