Facts
- The case concerned changes to the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) affecting overseas doctors previously recruited under an earlier scheme.
- The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) challenged these changes, claiming the government created a legitimate expectation that affected doctors could continue their training and employment in the UK under the initial scheme’s terms.
- The HSMP changes disadvantaged these doctors by restricting their ability to complete training and raising the risk of deportation.
Issues
- Whether the government’s changes to HSMP frustrated a legitimate expectation created for affected overseas doctors regarding continuation of their training and employment under the previous scheme.
- Whether the government could lawfully depart from established immigration policy, notwithstanding the impact on legitimate expectation, and under what circumstances such a departure would be justified.
- What balance must be achieved between protecting individual legitimate expectations and allowing the government to alter policy in the public interest.
Decision
- The House of Lords recognised both procedural and substantive forms of legitimate expectation in administrative law.
- The court determined the focus of this case was on substantive legitimate expectation: the outcome expected by the affected doctors based on the prior scheme.
- It held that while the government is entitled to change policy in the public interest, this prerogative is subject to fairness, especially where individuals have relied to their detriment on previous assurances.
- The court concluded that departure from established policy may frustrate legitimate expectations, but such departure must be justified by compelling public interest.
- The government is required to consider the impact of policy alterations on affected individuals and demonstrate a sound reason for the changes.
Legal Principles
- Legitimate expectation arises where a public body has clearly and unambiguously represented that a particular policy or practice would continue and individuals have relied on that representation to their detriment.
- There are two types of legitimate expectation: procedural (expectation of process) and substantive (expectation of an outcome).
- The prerogative to change policy is not absolute; overriding public interest may justify departure, but fairness and consideration of affected parties are essential.
- In immigration law, shifting policies necessitate transparency and fairness, with careful balancing of the rights of affected individuals and the changing needs of the state.
Conclusion
The House of Lords established that while the government may change policy in the public interest, legitimate expectations created by prior representations must be carefully weighed. Departures from established policies require fair process and compelling justification, ensuring fairness for affected individuals. The principles in BAPIO continue to guide judicial review of government actions within immigration law, shaping the doctrine of legitimate expectation and reinforcing adherence to the rule of law in administrative decision-making.