The court considered the propriety of an order for deportation of an offender after conviction for a serious offence.
Law LJ said: ‘Clearly the Secretary of State has a particular responsibility to make judgments as to what Judge LJ called ‘broad issues of social cohesion and public confidence’ within the system of immigration control. The Secretary of State’s judgment on those matters must broadly be respected by the AIT, at least so far as the policy itself is concerned. As Wall LJ stated in OP . . the Secretary of State’s assessment of those matters has ‘to be taken as a given unless it is palpably wrong’. But then the AIT must exercise its own judgment as to whether, in view of that axiom or given, the decision to remove or deport is disproportionate in the terms of Article 8(2) of the Convention. That decision is to be arrived at on the merits and is entirely in the hands of the Tribunal.’
Judges:
Laws LJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 377
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v HK (Turkey) CA 27-May-2010
The SS appealed against the successful appeal by the respondent against a deportation order. He had come to England in 1994, been granted indefinite leave to stay, and made a family here. In 2007 he was convicted of grievous bodily harm.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346154
