Schmidt and Another v Secretary of State For Home Affairs [1969] 1 All ER 904, EWCA
Citation:Schmidt and Another v Secretary of State For Home Affairs [1969] 1 All ER 904, EWCA
Rule of thumb:If you are in the UK on a Visa, & it expires, can you be ordered to leave without a Hearing? Yes, there is no right to a procedural Hearing, unless you can prove everyone was treated the way you were seeking to be.
Judgment:
The basic facts of this case were that Schmidt had sought entry to the United Kingdom on a visa. Schmidt began studying at a College of Scientology and the department for Home Affairs had intelligence stating that the organisation was socially harmful. The immigration visa of Schmidt was therefore terminated for this reason without a hearing, The Court held that immigrants in this way are not entitled to a full, oral hearing before being deported and they were entitled to be deported. The Court held that people come into the country on VISA’s who have questionable societal associations are not afforded great rights and it is very much at the discretion of immigration officials as to how they are treated. The particular facts of this case were of somewhat significant importance but a foundational principle of administrative law was also established. It was held by the Court that if other people have been given this treatment, then there is a legitimate expectation that they will indeed be treated the same way. There were no other examples of other visa immigrants getting an oral hearing meaning that this did not apply, so this was established by the Court as a potential ground of judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
‘Accordingly, when an alien approaching this country is refused leave to land, he has no right capable of being infringed in such a way as to enable him to come to this Court for the purpose of assistance, and, since he has no kind of right or interest capable of being infringed or affected, the considerations urged by Mr. Hogg could not affect such a case at all. In such a situation the alien’s desire to land can be rejected for good reason or bad, for sensible reason or fanciful or for no reason at all... The Home Secretary did not reply at once to those letters and, before he replied, the Minister of Health made a statement in the House of Commons about scientology. I will give some extracts from it: "Scientology is a pseudo-philosophical cult introduced into this country some years ago from the United States and has its world headquarters in East Grinstead....The Government are satisfied, having reviewed all the available evidence, that scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it...its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them. There is evidence that children are now being indoctrinated....” [A] foreign alien...has no right to enter this country except by leave; and, if he is given leave to come for a limited period, he has no right to stay for a day longer than the permitted time. If his permit is revoked before the time limit expires, he ought, I think, to be given an opportunity of making representations: for he would have a legitimate expectation of being allowed to stay for the permitted time. Except in such a case, a foreign alien has no right ( and, I would add, no legitimate expectation ( of being allowed to stay. He can be refused without reasons given and without a hearing. Once his time has expired, he has to go. In point of practice, however, I am glad to say that the Home Secretary does not act arbitrarily. He is always ready to consider any representations that are put before him; as indeed, we are told he is ready to do in these cases... The fourth point was, assuming that the Home Secretary was under a duty to act fairly, whether there was any ground for saying that he had acted unfairly. I see no trace of unfairness at all. In his letter at the end of July, he extended their time for two months until the end of September. If the plaintiffs had had any representations to make, they should have made them during that time; but they made no representations. Instead of making representations, they brought this action, claiming that the Home Secretary was acting wrongly. Faced with this action, he quite rightly resisted the suggestion. And his fairness is shown by his readiness still to receive representations. The real point is whether the statement of claim is so bad that it ought to be struck out. I think it is. This action is quite unsustainable...’, Lord Denning
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.