Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015]...

Facts

• Mr. Mandalia applied for a Tier 4 (General) student visa to remain in the UK.
• His application was refused by the Home Office because he submitted incorrect bank statements that showed slightly less than the required funds for a shorter period than mandated.
• Although Mr. Mandalia had sufficient maintenance funds and could immediately provide correct documentation, the Home Office refused to consider it, strictly applying procedural rules.
• The Home Office had previously, according to its own guidance and in practice, accepted corrected documentation in similar circumstances.
• The Supreme Court found that the Home Office's refusal to consider the correct documentation amounted to an unlawful inconsistency in application of its policy.

Issues

1. Whether the Home Office's refusal to accept Mr. Mandalia’s corrected documentation, despite established practice and policy guidance to allow such corrections, was lawful.
2. Whether the exercise of discretion in immigration decision-making must be consistent, fair, and predictable when considering applicant errors.
3. Whether diversion from established policy or inconsistent application of procedures undermines procedural fairness and legitimate expectations in public law.

Decision

• The Supreme Court held that the Home Office unlawfully refused to accept the corrected documentation Mr. Mandalia offered.
• It found that the refusal was inconsistent with the Home Office’s own policy guidance and previous practice of accepting corrections in comparable circumstances.
• The Court emphasized that where discretion exists, it must be exercised in a consistent, fair, and predictable manner.
• The Supreme Court underscored that strict adherence to procedural technicalities should not override the requirements of fairness and consistent administration.

Legal Principles

• Consistency in the administration of public law, particularly immigration, mandates predictable and non-arbitrary application of policies.
• Where public bodies establish practices for exercising discretion, individuals may have a legitimate expectation of similar future treatment.
• Procedural fairness requires that like cases are treated alike, and any departure from consistent past practice must be justified.
• Transparent policy guidelines, reasoned decisions, and mechanisms to address discrepancies are critical to lawful public administration.
• Strict procedural compliance should not defeat the overriding principles of fairness and consistency.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department established that administrative decision-making, especially within immigration law, must be consistent and fair, with discretion exercised uniformly in line with established policy and previous practices to avoid arbitrary or unjust outcomes.