R (Bhatti) v Croydon Magistrates Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR SHETTY,LORD JUSTICE ELIAS,LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 3004 (Admin),[2009] EWHC 2772 (Admin),[2010] EWHC 522 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 03 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | CO/4275/2009,CO/4275/09 |
[2009] EWHC 2772 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Sitting at the Central Criminal Old Bailey London EC4M 7EH
Before: MR JUSTICE CALVERT SMITH
CO/4275/09
Mr A Jones appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr J Hall appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Mr R Shetty appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
(As Approved)
MR JUSTICE CALVERT SMITH: The claimants in this application for judicial review run a college in London. On 2 February 2009 the college applied for registration as a tier 4 sponsor, which would enable the college to sponsor persons from overseas who wished to study at the college.
Just over three weeks later, on 24 February, the police raided the college under cover of a warrant to search and seize property. The warrant involved the Border Agency and was in connection with suspicions that the college was facilitating the entry into this country of illegal immigrants.
The issue and execution of that warrant is the subject of an application for judicial review by the claimants upon which I refused leave on the papers and which is to be renewed to an oral application in due course.
This hearing, today, has been concerned not with the issue of execution of a warrant but with its consequences. News of the execution of this warrant seems to have travelled fast. On 26 February the Department for Innovation Universities and Skills, the register of education and training providers, wrote to the claimants saying that their registration with them was temporarily suspended as a result of “enforcement action on 24 February 2009 led by the UK Border Agency.”
A few days after that the Confederation of Tourism and Hospitality wrote to one of the claimants confirming something that had been said orally on the telephone that day, namely that the confederation had decided to suspend all business activities with Middlesex College pending the outcome of the Metropolitan Police's investigation of the college and in line with the DIUS's suspension relations with the college.
On 9 March the Accreditation Service for International Colleges (ASIC) wrote to Mr Aktar at the college and informed him that the accreditation of the college with them had been considered at a meeting on 27 February and:
“In the light of a letter dated 26 February sent to you by the registration team, the register of educational training providers informing you that Middlesex College has been temporarily suspended from the register, the Committee decided that your accreditation by ASIC should also be suspended pending the outcome of ongoing investigation. This decision was supported by other issues of concern which have been identified by Mr Morris Dimmock and myself [the writer of the letter being the head of accreditation, Professor Wilson] concerning the operation of a college which are not yet fully resolved.
If the college meets the bona fides requirements of Immigration Rules and is returned to the register, we shall consider our decision. In the meantime please note the suspension is with immediate effect.”
Notwithstanding the fact that those three organisations knew of the raid and indeed in the latter two cases of the actions taken by other agencies, on 19 March the Border & Immigration Agency wrote to the college, the recipient being a Mr Ian McDougal as follows:
“Thank you for your application to become a licence sponsor of tier 4 student migrants within the points based system. We have considered your application against the licencing criteria under PBS and it has been granted.”
A little later:
“You will be able to issue confirmation of acceptance for studies from the launch tier 4. The maximum number of confirmation of acceptance studies you can issue is 350 tier 4 students.”
And so on. In fact the licence was said to be valid for four years and to involve an A rating.
However, a fortnight later, on 2 April, the Border Agency wrote again to the same recipient, Mr McDougal as follows:
“We received your application for a tier 4 licence on 2 February 2009 which was later granted. However, we have recently suspended Middlesex College from the sponsor register as a result of ongoing investigation by this department and arrests made during a recent criminal investigation. We have been informed that your ASIC accreditation has been temporarily suspended. Having the necessary accreditation for the recognised accreditation body's manager in any tier 4 based system licenced sponsor.”
They informed the college that their name had been removed from the published website and gave them 28 days to make any representations. The final decision on what action to take would be taken within 14 days of the receipt of any representations or within 14 days of 28 days from the receipt of the letter.
On 5 May a claim form was issued and on 5 June an application for a stay of the suspension or the further action on the suspension, the 28 days now having passed was issued.
A point was taken on the papers, though it has not been pursued in argument before me today, that the failure to serve that claim on the Treasury Solicitors invalidates the original claim and the application for a stay. I am persuaded by the brief submissions made by Mr Jones, on behalf of claimants, that although that was indeed the case, as he concedes, it would not be a proper case for me to strike the claim or the application for the stay out on the basis that the Agency itself was well aware of the issue and indeed was the authority which had set the ball rolling and kept it rolling throughout and was therefore was well aware of the situation that it had created by the sequence of events that I have just described.
On 16 June 2009 the papers were put before me and I refused permission to apply for judicial review, as I mentioned on the application concerning the issue of execution of the warrant but granted it on the issue of the question of the suspension of the claimant college from the tier 4 sponsorship status and ordered that the procedure which was then in place leading, no doubt, eventually to withdrawal, should be stayed until the determination of whether the procedures which were adopted which led to the suspension were in order.
The situation then was that the defendants, as they may become or may not become (the suspects), had been ordered to return to the police station on a date in July and when, no doubt, it was hoped by all concerned that a decision would have been taken as to whether indeed there was to be a prosecution or not. Nobody before me today is concerned directly with those investigations but all we all know is that they did not result in a decision in July and there was a further bailing until 1 October when, of course, again, when it was no doubt hoped that the matters would become clear and that the third defendant, as the Home Office was on the original claim would know, as would the claimants, what the future held and very likely, if that all became clear, the question of these proceedings might well be resolved as well.
Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case and the matter has been put back once again on police bail, until 2 November, the Court has been informed. So that the situation of limbo, described by Mr Jones on behalf of his clients, still pertains and it is perfectly clear and easy to understand that it has so far involved a very considerable financial penalty upon the claimants as they await the decision with their registration as tier 4 sponsors being in suspension. Hence today's application, on the one hand, by the claimants for an injunction that the suspension be lifted and that the registration be restored so that at least until matters are resolved either in the Administrative Court or in terms of a criminal prosecution, they can continue trading and, on the other hand, by the third defendants that the order I made in June be lifted on the basis that the removal of the claimants from the register is effectively mandatory as a result of the policy which has been promulgated, which requires, as accepted on all sides, that tier 4 status cannot be held by a college or other body which has not the appropriate accreditation.
The first and perhaps most important application made today by Mr Jones was that the renewed application for leave and the hearing of the application for judicial review upon which permission has been granted should be listed for a day this term in view of the inordinate delay that there has already been since May when the claim was issued and in view of the fact that other matters, the police investigation in particular, have not yet proceeded to any kind of conclusion and the future seems very unclear.
In the circumstances, that is an order I grant. This case will be heard this term. It will be set down for a day's hearing and clearly negotiations will have to take place between the parties as to a suitable date together with the authorities at the Administrative Court Office.
Having made that order, I then consider what the best way of preserving the position is or changing it between now and then. Although I take on board the simple argument of Mr Hall: well, there is really no choice in the matter. The policy is clear. No accreditation from ASIC, therefore no tier 4 sponsor status, therefore we should be entitled to proceed to withdrawal, and secondly, that if the claimants have an issue with that, what they need to do is to appeal by way of review to ASIC to see whether ASIC would change their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Glenn & Company Essex Ltd) v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
...of section 16(5) of PACE were not satisfied. In that case the Court quashed the warrant. 71 He also referred to R (Bhatti and others) v Croydon Magistrates Court and others [2010] EWHC 522 where a copy of the writ was not provided to the householder. Having reviewed the authorities as to th......
-
Cecil Steven Heilligger v Westminster Magistrates' Court
...the consequences for the police of failures to observe the strict statutory procedure which Parliament has laid down.” 36 In R(Bhatti) v Croydon Magistrates' Court [2010] EWHC 522 (Admin) the addresses that were authorised to be searched under a warrant were set out in a schedule to the wa......
-
R (on the application of El-Kurd) v Winchester Crown Court
...Hill [1991] 93 CR APPR 60 at 65–67, R (C) v Chief Constable of A and Another [2006] EWHC 2352 (Admin) at Para 9, Bhatti and others v Croydon Magistrates Court and another [2010] EWHC 522 (Admin), [2010] 3 All ER 671 at 678–679 and R (Cook) v SeriousOrganised Crime Agency [2010] EWHC (Admin)......
-
R (on the application of Mills) v Sussex Police
...solely on the basis of an unlawful execution: see e.g. R v Chief Constable of Lancashire ex parte Parker [1993] QB 577; and R (Bhatti) v Croydon Magistrates' Court [2011] 1 WLR 948. It is said here that the necessary safeguards to protect legal professional privilege were not in place, no......