Article 8 requires that an appeal against a deportation order by reference to it should be effective. The court
(a) cited at para 65 the decision of the ECtHR in W v United Kingdom (1988) 10 EHRR 29, para 64, to the effect that article 8 required that parents who had sought contact with a child in care should have been involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to provide the requisite protection of their interests;
(b) held at para 69 that the same requirement applied to article 8 claims by immigrants; and
(c) concluded at para 70 that it amounted to a requirement that their access to the tribunal should be effective.
Judges:
Lord Dyson MR, Richards, Sullivan LJJ
Citations:
[2014] EWCA Civ 1622, [2015] 1 WLR 2247, [2014] WLR(D) 547, [2015] 3 All ER 827
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Gudanaviciene and Others v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Another Admn 13-Jun-2014
The six claimants challenged the refusal of the Director of Legal Aid Casework to grant legal aid to the claimants. The cases raise common issues concerning the availability of legal aid in immigration cases under Section 10 of the 2012 Act. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Aid, Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.539982
