## Facts

- "M," a citizen of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), arrived in the UK seeking asylum.
- M was interviewed by immigration staff, and the Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, ordered M's removal before a judicial review of the asylum decision could be conducted.
- The High Court issued an order halting M’s removal, but the Home Secretary, via staff, disregarded the court's order and proceeded with the removal.
- The courts later found that the Home Secretary had disobeyed the High Court’s instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether a government minister, specifically the Home Secretary, could be held personally liable for contempt of court for disobeying a court order while acting in an official capacity.
2. Whether government ministers are legally required to comply with court orders and are subject to legal consequences for non-compliance.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that government ministers must comply with the law and can be found in contempt of court for disobeying court orders, even when acting on behalf of the state.
- The argument that ministers are immune from legal sanction for ignoring court directions was rejected.
- The decision confirmed the courts' authority to enforce their orders against the government.

## Legal Principles

- The case reaffirmed the rule of law: all individuals and bodies, including government officials, are subject to the law and court authority.
- Ministerial responsibility exists for compliance with legal and judicial requirements, regardless of status or function.
- Courts maintain the power to ensure enforcement of their rulings against the executive to protect individual rights and prevent abuse of power.
- The ruling developed principles from Factortame, confirming that legal accountability extends to ministers in cases of direct disobedience of court orders.

## Conclusion

M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 is a foundational decision for UK constitutional law, confirming that government ministers are not above the law and are subject to court enforcement for non-compliance. The case firmly established ministerial responsibility, judicial review, and the fundamental authority of the courts over executive action.