AC-2025-LON-001440 - [2025] EWHC 2472 (Admin)

I said I would return to the issue of the prerogative. At the hearing, Lord Murray drew attention to paragraphs 50 and 51 of the judgment of Farbey J in BYK: see paragraph 48 above. Paragraph 50 suggests that there may be a need for caution when considering challenges to decisions involving the exercise of the prerogative. Paragraph 51, however, envisages an argument that, in such cases, there might be “a more active approach to intervention by the court than the conventional approach to the judicial supervision of statutory powers and duties”. I do not understand the present claimant to advocate such an approach, which seems antithetical to what Lord Murray was recorded in paragraph 50 as submitting and is inherently dubious. Since the relevant provisions of ARAP have been set out in the immigration rules made under the Immigration Acts, there is no scope for any different standard of review than applies in the case of those rules, as well as policies in the immigration field that are not contained in the immigration rules. In any event, Lord Murray did not develop before me the submission recorded in paragraph 50 of BYK.