Introduction

The case of Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2021), heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on February 18, 2021, addresses significant issues surrounding the affordability of citizenship registration fees for children and the use of Parliamentary debates in judicial proceedings. The appellants, including The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens (PRCBC) and individual children, challenged the statutory fees imposed on applications for British citizenship registration under the British Nationality Act 1981, contending that these fees rendered the statutory entitlement nugatory and breached the duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of the lower court, dismissing the Secretary of State's appeal against declarations that she had breached her duties under section 55 when setting the registration fees at £973 and £1,012 under the 2017 and 2018 Fees Regulations, respectively. The court affirmed that the fees were set within the powers granted by the Immigration Act 2014 and did not render the entitlement to citizenship registration nugatory. Additionally, the court ruled that referencing Parliamentary debates to establish compliance with statutory duties contravened Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, thereby dismissing the claimants' cross-appeal against the validity of the Fees Regulations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases that have shaped the understanding of fee affordability and Parliamentary privilege:

• R (Williams) v SSHD [2017]: Established that fees set by the Secretary of State are part of the statutory scheme and must align with parliamentary intent.
• R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017]: Highlighted that fees must be reasonably affordable to prevent access to justice from being effectively barred.
• R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants [1997]: Affirmed that specific statutory rights cannot be undermined by subordinate legislation.
• Heathrow Hub [2020] EWCA Civ 13: Clarified the permissible uses of Parliamentary proceedings in court.
• Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995]: Defined the scope of Parliamentary privilege under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's reasoning centered on the interpretation of the Immigration Act 2014 and the relationship between primary and subordinate legislation. The court held that the fees set under the 2014 Act were within the Secretary of State's powers and were part of the statutory scheme intended by Parliament. The requirement of a fee was deemed an integral aspect of the citizenship registration process, aligning with the legislative intent to fund and subsidize parts of the immigration system.

Furthermore, the court analyzed the claimants' reliance on Parliamentary debates to demonstrate compliance with section 55 duties. It concluded that such reliance violated Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which protects the freedom of speech within Parliamentary proceedings from judicial scrutiny. The courts have recognized limited exceptions for using Parliamentary material, primarily for establishing historical facts or interpreting ambiguous legislation under human rights frameworks. However, the extensive use of debates to substantiate administrative duty fulfillment was outside permissible bounds.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory fees set within the delegated powers of the Secretary of State are lawful, provided they adhere to the legislative framework established by Parliament. It also clarifies the boundaries of Parliamentary privilege, emphasizing that extensive reliance on Parliamentary debates in judicial reviews is not permissible unless it falls within narrowly defined exceptions. Consequently, this decision upholds the autonomy of the executive in fee-setting while protecting the integrity of Parliamentary discourse from undue judicial interference.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in PRCBC & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department serves as a reaffirmation of established legal principles governing the setting of statutory fees and the inviolability of Parliamentary privilege. By upholding the legality of the fees under the Immigration Act 2014 and restricting the use of Parliamentary debates in judicial matters, the court delineates clear boundaries between legislative intent, executive action, and judicial oversight.

This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that fee structures, while funding essential government functions, do not become so burdensome as to effectively deny statutory rights. However, it also maintains that within the prescribed legislative framework, the executive possesses the authority to set such fees, provided they align with the intent and purpose of the enabling statute.

For practitioners and stakeholders in immigration and nationality law, this case reinforces the necessity of adhering to statutory schemes when designing and contesting fee structures. It also highlights the judicial system's role in balancing access to statutory rights with the autonomy granted to the executive, ensuring that legal procedures remain both effective and equitable.