The court was asked: ‘If a criminal who previously had leave to remain in this country is liable to deportation because of his offences, but cannot actually be deported because to remove him would infringe his rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, with the result that the deportation order is revoked, what is the status of his previous leave to remain?’
Held: The appeal was allowed. The correct reading of section 5 did not operate to revive a prior leave on the revocation of a deportation order: ‘The terms of section 5 of the 1971 Act are, as words, capable either of importing revival of leave or of not doing so. Revival is not their natural meaning, because the natural meaning is that revocation takes effect when it happens and does not undo events occurring during the lifetime of the deportation order. Revival is a significant and far-reaching legal concept, and it is much more likely that it would have been specifically provided for if it had been intended . . section 5(2) of the 1971 Act does not mean that if the deportation order is revoked, the invalidation by section 5(1) of leave to remain is retrospectively undone and the previous leave to remain does not revive. Mr George remains liable to deportation, even though it cannot at present be carried out.’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] UKSC 28, [2014] 1 WLR 1831, [2014] WLR(D) 208, UKSC 2012/0250
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Immigration Act 1971 5, UK Borders Act 2007
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – George v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 9-Dec-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal to reinstate his indefinite leave to remain after successfully appealing against a deportation order.
Held: The claim failed. Bidder QC J said: ‘the wording of section 5 is tolerably clear and . .
Appeal from – George, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Oct-2012
The claimant had had indefinite leave to remain. He was convicted of a serious offence and ordered to be deported. He successfully appealed against that order, but now said that the effect of that was to revive his indefinite leave to remain.
Crime, Immigration
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.526193
