Facts
Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 imposed a £2,000 penalty per person found to have entered the UK clandestinely in a vehicle. The scheme could apply to drivers, owners, hirers and operators and provided for detention of vehicles. Hauliers and drivers challenged the scheme. The High Court found it incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and inconsistent with European Community law. The Home Secretary appealed.
Issue
Did the penalty scheme comply with Article 6 and the protection of property in Article 1 of Protocol No 1? Did it infringe the free movement of goods or the freedom to provide services under the EC Treaty?
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision
By a majority, the Court of Appeal upheld the declaration of incompatibility. The punitive nature and severity of the penalties brought the scheme within the criminal limb of Article 6 despite its domestic classification as civil. The procedure did not provide the safeguards Article 6 required. The majority also found the scheme incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No 1. Laws LJ dissented on the Convention issues.
The Home Secretary succeeded on the Community law grounds. The Court of Appeal set aside the relief the High Court had granted on those grounds, so the appeal was allowed in part.
Reported citations: [2003] QB 728, [2002] 3 WLR 344
Source: Full judgment
