Secretary of State For The Home Department v. XX [2001] UKHL 47
- 2001
- United Kingdom
Topics
Public securityLegal bases
European Convention on Human Rights United Kingdom: Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 United Kingdom: Immigration Rules (HC395) United Kingdom: Immigration Act 1971Courts
House of Lords, United KingdomLaws
Right to an effective remedyFacts
Mr XX is a Pakistani national. In 1993, he was granted an entry clearance into the UK to enable him to work as a minister of religion with the Jamait Ahle-e-Hadith in Oldham. In October 1997, he travelled with his family to Pakistan. On his return in December 1997 he applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom but was refused. According to his letter of refusal, "the Secretary of State is satisfied, based on the information he has received from confidential sources, that you are involved with an Islamic terrorist organisation Markaz Dawa Al Irshad (MDI). He is satisfied that in the light of your association with the MDI it is undesirable to permit you to remain and that your continued presence in this country represents a danger to national security”. The Secretary of State also added that his deportation from the United Kingdom would be conducive to the “public good”. It was alleged that Mr Rehman has also been partly responsible for an increase in the number of Muslims in the United Kingdom who have undergone some form of militant training, including indoctrination into extremist beliefs and at least some basic weapons training.
Legal grounds
Section 2(1)(b) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997; Paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules (HC395); Section 3(5) and 15(3) of the Immigration Act 1971; Article 13 of the ECHR.
Findings
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission rejected all these allegations. The Secretary of State appealed against this decision. The Court of Appeal in [2000] 3 WLR 1240 allowed the appeal. The court considered that the Commission had taken too narrow a view of what could constitute a threat to national security. In addition, the Court held that with regard to deportation on grounds of ‘public good’ the Secretary of State’s request is within his legal powers. There is no definition or limitation of what can be "conducive to the public good"; the matter is plainly in the first instance and primarily one for the discretion of the Secretary of State. The House of Lords (Supreme Court) agreed with the Court of Appeal’s decisions on what constitutes ‘national security’ and ‘public good’. Accordingly, the appeal of Mr Rehman was dismissed.