metadata toggle
R (BAPIO Action Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2007] EWCA Civ 1139
5.43.1R (BAPIO Action Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 1139
A race equality impact assessment was an essential preliminary to a lawful decision and ought not to be undertaken as a rearguard action
Facts: the Secretary of State for the Home Department published guidance which directly affected immigration law but had not been created in the manner required for the promulgation of Immigration Rules.
Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Sedley, Maurice Kay and Rimer LJJ) held that the immigration rules were unlawful:
2. The case no longer directly concerns the third limb of the judicial review application, which Stanley Burnton J determined against the executive and which has not been the subject of any cross-appeal. This arose out of the failure of the Home Secretary to comply, otherwise than in retrospect, with the duty imposed on him by section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to have due regard, in carrying out his functions, to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. The judge declared that there had been a failure to comply with the duty but, in the light of the unchallenged race equality impact assessment which was subsequently made, declined to hold that the rule change was vitiated by the omission. This conclusion, which was essentially an exercise of the discretion to withhold relief, is not challenged.
3. Such a finding does not in any way diminish the importance of compliance with section 71, not as rearguard action following a concluded decision but as an essential preliminary to any such decision. Inattention to it is both unlawful and bad government. It is the Home Office’s good fortune that the eventual assessment did not force it to go back to the drawing board.
R (BAPIO Action Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Previous Next