## Facts

- The applicants challenged decisions of the Home Secretary under the Immigration Act 1971, specifically regarding removal as "illegal entrants."
- The core dispute was whether the power to remove depended on the individual actually being an illegal entrant—a fact the courts could verify—or solely on the Home Secretary's belief.
- The House of Lords examined whether the courts could independently review the factual basis supporting the Home Secretary’s authority to deport.
- The ruling emphasised the need for courts to verify evidence supporting administrative decisions with significant consequences, particularly in immigration contexts.

## Issues

1. Whether the power to remove individuals under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 depended on the Home Secretary’s belief or the actual fact of illegal entry.
2. Whether courts are entitled to independently determine the existence of jurisdictional or precedent facts that support administrative action.
3. How to distinguish legal errors that invalidate public body authority from other types of errors in the exercise of discretion.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the actual status of being an illegal entrant is a precedent fact that must be capable of independent verification by the courts.
- The court confirmed that officials may not exercise legal authority unless the basic facts for that power are truly present.
- Courts are entitled to review and determine for themselves whether essential facts supporting administrative action exist.
- The ruling clarified that legal errors affecting a decision-maker’s authority may be corrected by the courts.

## Legal Principles

- The "precedent fact" rule: Certain statutory powers can only be validly exercised where specified facts—precedent facts—exist, and these facts are subject to independent judicial determination.
- Administrative authorities cannot claim jurisdiction based on mere belief; courts must validate the factual basis for the use of statutory powers.
- Distinction between jurisdictional (legal) errors, which courts can review, and errors in exercise of power, which may not invalidate the action if authority exists.
- Courts serve as a check to ensure government officials act within the proper legal boundaries, particularly where individual rights are at risk.

## Conclusion

R v Home Secretary, ex parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74 firmly established the precedent fact rule in UK administrative law, affirming the judiciary’s power to independently verify facts supporting statutory powers, especially in the context of deportation and immigration control, thereby strengthening the legal safeguards against misuse of governmental authority.