R (on the application of Mayaya and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 3088 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 193 (Nov)
The secretary of state’s policy on discretionary leave provided that a person who had committed a serious crime would not normally receive a grant of discretionary leave for a period exceeding six months, and while those who had been granted discretionary leave were ordinarily eligible for indefinite leave to remain after six years, those who had committed serious crimes could only obtain indefinite leave to remain after 10 years of discretionary leave to remain. At its highest, the no-fettering principle meant that a person had to know what the relevant policy of a public authority entailed and had to be able to make submissions about its application in their individual case. The public authority then had to consider that case on its merits.
The discretionary policy breached the no-fettering principle by suggesting that a person always had to have had at least 10 years’ discretionary leave to be granted indefinite leave to remain. The exclusion policy read as barring the secretary of
