What is crucial is that the policy must not fetter the exercise of the discretion.
The particular circumstances always require to be considered. Provided that the policy is not regarded as binding and the authority still retains a free exercise of discretion the policy may serve the useful purpose of giving a reasonable guidance both to applicants and decision-makers.”
[Emphasis added] We would add that it is long established that this type of publication is not to be construed by adopting the approach applicable to a statute, deed or contract. See, for example
- Introduction
- Abdul Aziz
- Statutory Framework
- The Secretary of State’s Decisions
- content
- The Secretary of State’s Decisions Analysed
- Permission to Appeal
- GROUND 1: THE SECTION 55 ISSUE
- Khan
- Mr Khan,
- Mr Rauf,
- Mr Aziz,
- The FtT’s Approach
- context
- legal
- only
- naturalisation
- JO and Others (Section 55 Duty) Nigeria
- MK (Section 55 – Tribunal Options) Sierra Leone
- Kaur (Section 55/Public Interest Interface)
- JO Nigeria
- twofold
- MK Sierra Leone
- possibility
- Kaur
- SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- in the circumstances of this case
- in this decision-making context
- right
- duty
- Deliallisi
- Delliallisi
- nature
- GROUND 2: THE EU LAW ISSUE
- G1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Pham
- AB (Nigeria v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- their fathers
- future
- R (G1)
- GROUND 3: THE POLICY ISSUE
- Paragraph 2.5:
- Paragraph 2.6:
- Paragraph 2.7:
- Paragraphs 2.20 – 2.21:
- might
- serious
- serious organized crime
- policy
- R (Alconbury Developments) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
- What is crucial is that the policy must not fetter the exercise of the discretion.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ozminnos
- In Re McFarland
- GROUND 4: THE ARTICLE 8 ECHR ISSUE.
- GROUND 5: THE PART 5A NIAA 2002 ISSUE
- A Footnote
- OMNIBUS CONCLUSION
- Dated