Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents to shape its reasoning:

• R (Morita) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Highlighted the nature of challenges to flat rate policies.
• R (DSD) v Parole Board and R (Cukurova Financial International Ltd) v HM Treasury – Provided frameworks for determining timeliness in judicial review applications.
• R (Join Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Offered insights into the application of Article 14 in discrimination claims.
• Padfield v Minister of Agriculture – Discussed the grounds for judicial review related to policy and legislative purpose.

These precedents were instrumental in the Court of Appeal's evaluation of both the timeliness and the substantive grounds of the appellants' claims.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's legal reasoning centered primarily on two pivotal issues: the timeliness of the judicial review application and the arguability of the substantive claims regarding the flat rate payment system.

Timeliness of Judicial Review

The crux of the timeliness argument hinged on whether the appellants had filed their claims within the permissible period. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized distinguishing between claims arising from individual decisions versus automated administrative policies. The Court of Appeal concluded that the appellants fell within the "person-specific category," where the ground for the claim arose when the appellants were first directly affected by the policy—specifically, upon their detention in an IRC. This interpretation differed from the initial judgment, leading to the extension of time for most appellants to pursue their claims.

Substantive Claims

Regarding the substantive claims, the appellants argued that the flat rate payment system exploited detainees and violated their dignity, thereby breaching the ECHR rights under Article 14, read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 8. The Court upheld the original judgment's stance that:

• The flat rate did not constitute exploitation under Article 4, as the work was voluntary and the payment was supplementary to an existing allowance.
• Differences in payment structures between prisoners and immigration detainees were justified due to the differing purposes of these institutions.
• There was no objective and reasonable justification for the alleged discrimination under Article 14.

The court further clarified that the statutory framework governing IRCs was adequately adhered to and that the policies in question did not infringe upon the legislative intent outlined in the 2001 Detention Centre Rules.

Impact

The judgment has several far-reaching implications:

• Judicial Review Timeliness: Establishes a clearer framework for determining when the clock starts ticking on judicial review claims, particularly distinguishing between person-specific and abstract policy challenges.
• Administrative Policies: Reinforces the notion that systemic administrative policies, even when applied broadly, require prompt legal challenges upon an individual's first direct impact.
• ECHR Claims in Detention Contexts: Highlights the boundaries of ECHR protections in relation to voluntary work schemes within detention centers, emphasizing the necessity for objective justification in disparate treatment claims.
• Policy Flexibility: Underscores the limitations within which the Secretary of State can exercise discretion in setting payment rates, given the statutory mandates and operational considerations.

Future cases involving similar administrative policies will likely reference this judgment to assess both the validity of claims and their procedural timeliness.