M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 (Case)

M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 (Case)

Facts:-

M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 is a landmark case in English constitutional law that established the principle that the rule of law applies to all persons and institutions, including the government. M was a citizen of Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) who arrived in the UK seeking asylum. His repeated applications were rejected, as

were his applications for judicial review. Due to a misunderstanding, the judge mistakenly

thought that counsel for the Secretary of State had given an undertaking that M’s removal would be postponed pending consideration of his latest application. 

M was not eventually disembarked from his flight back to Zaire. Learning of M’s deportation, the judge ordered his return. The Secretary of State convinced that M’s application for asylum was rightfully rejected, applied for the judge’s injunction order to be set aside and canceled M’s return. M instituted committal proceedings against the Home Office and the Secretary of State for breaching the undertaking not to remove him.

Issues:-

Simon Brown J, dismissing M’s motion, found that section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 kept the Crown’s immunity from injunction, thus, Crown departments, ministers, or officials acting in the course of their duties could not be impleaded for contempt of court.

The Court of Appeal partially allowed M’s appeal, finding the Secretary of State guilty of contempt of court. Both sides appealed.However, the House of Lords held that this argument was unfounded and that the rule of law applied to everyone, regardless of their position. The court found that the Home Secretary had acted in contempt of court by refusing to comply with a valid court order and ordered him to pay a fine.

Decision / Outcome:-

Even before the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 came into force, Crown officials could be personally liable for a tort committed or authorized by them, despite the action being carried out in their official capacity. In other words, injunctions can be granted against

Crown officials acting in their official capacity — as authorized by section 31(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, albeit only in limited circumstances. Secondly, while the Crown itself cannot be found guilty of contempt of court, a minister in his official capacity can.

Main point:-

The M v Home Office case is a clear example of the rule of law in action. It shows that no one is above the law, not even the government. The case also demonstrates the importance of the courts in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the government is accountable to the law.