M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377

M was a citizen of Zaire who had sought asylum in the United Kingdom. During proceedings concerning his removal, an urgent dispute arose about compliance with the court's directions. He was removed, and Garland J made an order requiring his return. The Home Secretary did not comply with that order. The resulting proceedings addressed whether the executive could resist an injunction and contempt jurisdiction by invoking the position of the Crown. The Court of Appeal made a contempt finding, and the House of Lords considered the legal responsibility of ministers and government departments.

Could a court grant an injunction against a minister acting officially and enforce compliance through contempt proceedings, despite the special position of the Crown?

The House of Lords rejected the proposition that ministers acting officially could disregard court orders without the possibility of contempt proceedings. Courts could grant appropriate injunctions against ministers, and a government department or minister in an official capacity could be subject to a contempt finding. That was distinct from making such a finding against the sovereign personally. The case also required care over the capacity in which the Home Secretary was responsible; it should not be summarised as establishing personal blame irrespective of knowledge or circumstances. Its central constitutional point was that executive compliance with the law is a legal obligation enforceable by courts, rather than a matter of governmental choice.

The executive is subject to enforceable court orders. An injunction and contempt jurisdiction can operate against a minister or government department in the relevant official capacity; the Crown's special position does not confer a general executive immunity from compliance with the law.

M v Home Office belongs principally to constitutional law and judicial control of the executive. It demonstrates the practical meaning of the rule of law: a declaration that a minister acted unlawfully would offer incomplete protection if an enforceable order could simply be ignored. Distinguish the sovereign, a government department and a minister's personal and official capacities. The judgment is not authority for a general statement that ministers are liable in tort whenever an official decision is unlawful.