Medical Justice v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Medical Justice v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Statutory Guidance does not require immediate assessment on receipt of a medico-legal report; caseworkers may postpone assessment for a reasonable period to obtain further evidence, such as a second opinion. The Second Opinion Policy is not inconsistent with the Statutory Guidance. However, Medical Justice had a legitimate expectation of consultation based on an established practice, and the failure to consult rendered the Policy unlawful.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Medical Justice; Defendant/appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Statutory Guidance Interpretation, Legitimate Expectation, Consultation Duty, Immigration Detention, Adults at Risk Policy
Public Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Statutory Guidance Interpretation Legitimate Expectation Consultation Duty Immigration Detention Adults at Risk Policy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Medical Justice

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Opinion Policy was inconsistent with the Statutory Guidance under section 59 of the Immigration Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether there was a legitimate expectation of consultation before the introduction of the Second Opinion Policy

Ratio Decidendi

The Statutory Guidance does not require immediate assessment on receipt of a medico-legal report; caseworkers may postpone assessment for a reasonable period to obtain further evidence, such as a second opinion. The Second Opinion Policy is not inconsistent with the Statutory Guidance. However, Medical Justice had a legitimate expectation of consultation based on an established practice, and the failure to consult rendered the Policy unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Secretary of State's appeal on inconsistency with Statutory Guidance (ground 1) allowed
  • Secretary of State's appeal on legitimate expectation of consultation (ground 2) dismissed