The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeals in part in two judicial review cases concerning regulations made under the Aliens Act 1935. It upheld the High Court’s finding that a regulation allowing an immigration officer to set the duration of an alien’s stay exceeded the powers conferred by the Act. It also overturned the High Court’s ruling that the statutory power behind a separate identity-document requirement was unconstitutional.
The first applicant, a Latvian national, was charged with remaining in the State after the time set for her departure. The condition had been imposed under Article 5(6) of the Aliens Order 1946. The High Court had found that provision ultra vires the 1935 Act and prohibited the prosecution from continuing. The State appealed.
The Supreme Court agreed that section 5(1)(b) and (d) of the 1935 Act did not authorise the Minister to require an alien to leave after a specified period, or to give an immigration officer power to impose such a condition. It said the regulation went beyond rules about entry and departure. The court said the validity of the parent statutory provisions under the Constitution did not need to be considered on that point.
The second applicant, a Chinese national, faced a charge of failing, without satisfactory explanation, to produce a registration certificate, passport or other document establishing identity and nationality. The High Court had found Article 15 of the 1946 Order within the authority of section 5(1)(h), but ruled that section unconstitutional for lacking sufficient principles and policies to guide delegated legislation. It had granted judicial review relief and restrained proceedings against him.
The Supreme Court agreed that Article 15 was authorised by section 5(1)(h), which covers registration and “other like matters”. It held that requiring documents to establish an alien’s identity and nationality fell within that category. It also found that section 5(1)(h) set out an adequate policy of regulating matters including registration, travel, employment and occupation, while leaving detailed rules to the Minister. The court therefore set aside the High Court’s constitutional ruling and substituted an order dismissing the second applicant’s judicial review claim.
The judgment addressed the High Court findings other than its ruling on section 2 of the Immigration Act 1999. At the end of this judgment, the Chief Justice said the court must consider that provision’s validity in the first applicant’s case. The source provided does not state the court’s ultimate decision on that issue.