R (on the Application of Quila and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Home Secretary appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning rule 277 of the Immigration Rules 1994, which restricts visa applications or sponsorship to those over 21. The Home Secretary argued that the raised age limit for visa applications or sponsorship was intended to protect young people, predominantly women, at risk of forced marriage. Quila was an 18-year-old Chilean man, married to an 18-year-old British wife. Bibi was a Pakistani woman, married to a British national of Asian background. In respect of both marriages, visas to enable the non-British partners to enter or remain in the UK to live with their spouses had been refused. The court held that the refusal to allow foreign spouses to reside in the UK with their new British spouses amounted to an interference with the claimants' right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. Given the legitimate purpose of the restriction in protecting young people from forced marriage, the court went on to consider whether that restriction could be justified under Article 8(2). The court considered whether the measures were rationally connected to the objective, whether they were no more than necessary to accomplish that objective, and whether they struck a fair balance between individual and community. It was held that the measures were rationally connected to the objective. The crucial questions remained whether the rule really deterred forced marriages and whether its impact on unforced marriages was disproportionate and discriminatory. It was held that there was a lack of evidence that rule 277 would prevent forced marriage and that in some cases it could make the situation more difficult for those forced to marry. In addition, the rule had a discriminatory impact on younger spouses and religious and ethnic groups where people tended to marry younger. The impact on the unforced marriages of younger applicants was a disproportionate interference with their Article 8 rights. The Home Secretary had failed to establish that the measures were no more than necessary to fulfil her objective and that they struck a fair balance between the interest of individuals and the community. The measures could not be justified and the appeal was dismissed. [Catherine Shelley]