It was generally home office (HO) policy to allow aliens to enter the country for study.
Plaintiffs had been allowed in to study at the “Hubbard” college of Scientology. In 1968 HO minister said in answer to a written parliamentary question that he considered scientology harmful.
Plaintiffs requested to extend their stay at the college but HO refused.
CA dismissed their claim, saying that as they had no right to stay, they were not entitled to a fair hearing and HO did not breach the rules on fair procedure.
An administrative body may, in a proper case, be bound to give a person who is affected by their decision an opportunity of making representations. It all depends on whether he has some right or interest, or, I would add, some legitimate expectation, of which it would not be fair to deprive him without hearing what he has to say.
Administrative Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and C...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.