R v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport [2004] UKHL 55 is a UK labour law case concerning

Facts

Romas were 400 times more likely than others to be refused entry to the UK under a policy of British immigration officials to ‘pre clear’ passengers boarding flights within Immigration Rules. If officers concluded that the passengers would claim asylum once they arrived, they would be refused entry. The ERRC brought this action, alleging direct discrimination, on behalf of a group of asylum seekers. Roma suffer discrimination at home, in particular, many attacks by skinheads. The claimants said, represented by Lester QC that the Government, represented by Greenwood QC, was breaching its international obligations.

The Court of Appeal distanced itself from the but for test, by a majority holding that there was no discrimination. Laws LJ, dissenting, said that it was an ‘inescapable’ conclusion that this was stereotyping of Roma.

Judgment

The House of Lords held the system was inherently and systematically discriminatory, contrary to RRA 1976 s 1(1)(a). Roma were deliberately intensively questioned because the officers knew practically all Czech asylum seekers were Roma. So they were treated, applying Nagarajan v London Regional Transport less favourably on racial grounds, contrary to domestic and international law. Lord Steyn said the following.
Baroness Hale also said, the ‘object of the legislation is to ensure that each person is treated as an individual and not assumed to be like other members of the group’. The legislation ‘makes no reference at all to justification in relation to direct discrimination. Nor, strictly, does it allow indirect discrimination to be justified. It accepts that a requirement or condition may be justified independently of its discriminatory effect.’

The appeal, however, failed in that there was no international law required the Roma to be allowed into the country before they applied for asylum.

Lord Bingham, Lord Hope and Lord Carswell gave concurring judgments.