M v Home Office
Ministers and government departments are subject to the courts' orders, and a minister can be found in contempt of court.
Facts
M, a teacher from Zaire, claimed asylum in the UK, which was refused. He applied for judicial review, and the judge was told by counsel for the Home Office that M would not be removed while the application was being considered. Because of a misunderstanding, M was put on a plane to Zaire. The judge then made an order requiring the Home Secretary to return M to the UK. The Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, on legal advice that the judge had no power to make such an order against the Crown, cancelled the arrangements for M's return. M was never found.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the courts have power to grant injunctions against ministers acting in their official capacity, and that the Home Secretary had been in contempt of court by disobeying the order. Lord Templeman said that the argument that there is no power to enforce the law by injunction or contempt proceedings against a minister in his official capacity would, if upheld, establish the proposition that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the Civil War. The finding of contempt was made against the Home Secretary in his official capacity, not personally.
Related cases on rule of law
- Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34, [2012] 1 AC 531
- Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75
- Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029
- Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206
- Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] Ch 344
- R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, [2009] 1 AC 756
- R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21, [2015] AC 1787
- R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, [2020] AC 869
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
