The Secretary of State brought an appeal against the High Court decision of 17 Jul 2014 ( EWHC 2452 (Admin)), where it was found that the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 amounted to a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s right to education under ECHR, A2P1 and was an unjustifiable discrimination against the claimant under ECHR, art 14. The CA upheld the Secretary of State’s appeal against the above two grounds and dismissed the claimant’s counter appeal that she met the statutory requirement of three years lawful ordinary residence by virtue of her residence following a grant of temporary admission and the grant of leave to remain.
The principal issue was whether the Secretary of State had adopted a lawful bright line rule in formulating the ‘basic category’ of eligible students under the Regulations. The court found the Secretary of State was justified in promulgating a bright line rule. It was an area in which certainty and speed of decision was needed. The Secretary of State was entitled to adopt criterion dependent on settlement and was not required to modify it by reference to any changes the Home Office might make as to how settlement could be achieved. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on grounds one and two, whereas the claimant’s cross appeal was dismissed.
The single minority judgment added that, while the Secretary of State could not be expected to make frequent adjustments to the regulations as the Immigration Rules changed, he must review the situation periodically to ensure that the requirements remained appropriate.
Helen Mountfield QC and Raj Desai were involved in this case.