THE Supreme Court ruled against Tory immigration policy yesterday less than a day after Home Secretary Theresa May presented MPs with a first reading of her Immigration Bill.

Judges unanimously ruled that the Australian-inspired points-based system implemented in 2008 did not have a “transparent and objective application process.”

The decision followed an appeal by accountancy student Mandish Mandalia, who was told to leave the country after providing bank statements for 22 rather than the required 28 days.

“The Supreme Court said that the government’s introduction and reliance on a new statute that prevented the correction of minor mistakes such as this simple mistake by Mr Mandalia was a very controversial legal provision,” said barrister Abid Mahmood of No 5 Chambers after the hearing.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is very likely to affect the way in which the Home Office uses the points-based system to deal with cases.

“The Supreme Court said that the policy was being wrongly interpreted by the Home Office and that therefore the Supreme Court had to decide the interpretation itself as a matter of law.”

In a previous case against the system heard by the Court of Appeal, Lord Justices Jackson, Vos and Longmore commented that the immigration provisions had “now achieved a degree of complexity which even Byzantine emperors would have envied.”

The rule could prove to be a setback for the Conservative immigration agenda despite harsher new rules passing their first reading in the Commons on Tuesday.

Ms May’s Immigration Bill includes the controversial requirement for landlords to check the legal status of their foreign tenants as well as restrictions on bank accounts and driving licences.

The new set of policies has been widely criticised for encouraging discrimination.

Tory MP for Bedford Richard Fuller told Ms May during the debate: “The problem is, it is very difficult for someone to see if someone is an illegal immigrant.

“What they see is someone who is different.

“Do you not accept that within this law there is the potential for discrimination to be increased if this is pursued too aggressively?”