In R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Everett, [1989] QB 811, a British citizen residing in Spain, whose passport was about to expire, applied to the British Embassy in Madrid for a new one. The applicant was informed that a passport would not be issued, because a warrant for his arrest had been issued in the UK; it was the policy of the Secretary of State not to issue passports in such circumstances. The Court of Appeal accepted that the issuing of a passport is carried out under a prerogative power. However, following GCHQ, the court maintained that the reviewability in practice of the exercise of a prerogative power depended upon the subject matter of the prerogative in question. The Court of Appeal was not prepared to accept that the issuing of passports came under that form of prerogative power, involving foreign affairs, which was inherently non- justiciable. The Crown and the Royal Prerogative

Taylor LJ stated:

'The majority of their Lordships [in GCHQ] indicated that whether judicial review of the exercise of prerogative power is open depends upon the subject matter and in particular whether it is justiciable. At the top of the scale of executive functions under the prerogative are matters of high policy, of which examples were given by their Lordships; making treaties, making war, dissolving Parliament … Clearly those matters … are not justiciable. But the grant or refusal of a passport is in a quite different category. It is a matter of administrative decision, affecting the rights of individuals and their freedom to travel.'

Although the court found that the decision whether or not to issue the applicant with a passport was one that was susceptible in principle to judicial review, they ultimately held that the Secretary of State's policy was not unlawful because, having properly followed the policy and taken all relevant matters into consideration, he was entitled to come to the decision that he had.