M v Home Office
M v Home Office is a UK constitutional law case concerning the rule of law.
Facts
M was a teacher from Zaire whose application for refugee status the Home Office had refused on the basis of incomplete information about M's subjection to torture. When the Home Office was about to put M on a flight bound for Kinshasa, M's solicitor made an emergency application to the High Court for judicial review of the deportation decision: the judge, Mr Justice Garland, adjourned the hearing of the application to another time during normal working hours when it could be dealt with properly. The judge did so on the understanding that the Home Office had given an undertaking, which is a promise made to the court by a party to a case and which the court can enforce, that M would not be deported until this fuller hearing had taken place.The Home Office, not thinking that an undertaking had been given, thereafter failed to intercept M during a layover in Paris. M's solicitor subsequently sought and received from Mr Justice Garland an order which required the Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, to retrieve M from Kinshasa. Believing that the court's coercive powers, which can be exercised to compel a person to do something or otherwise be found in contempt of court, could not be exercised against a Minister of the Crown, the Home Office, through the British Embassy in Kinshasa, did not take adequate measures to secure M's return. The Home Office's interpretation was consistent with the contemporary understanding of the law, and Mr Justice Garland later revoked his order for lack of jurisdiction. However, M filed a motion in contempt against the Home Secretary for breaching the order while it was in force and should therefore have been complied with and before it had been officially revoked by the court.
Judgment
Court of Appeal
A majority of the panel in the Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Nolan and the Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, held that the courts could exercise coercive powers against Ministers of the Crown, that the order of Garland J was valid, and that the Home Secretary was in breach of the order. Adopting the submission of leading counsel for M, Stephen Sedley QC, Nolan LJ said the following.House of Lords
The House of Lords affirmed the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal and held that the Home Secretary acted in contempt of court, albeit that the Home Secretary was liable in his official capacity rather than personally.Lord Templeman said the following: