The claimant appealed against the decision to deport him made on the basis of hs propensity to criminality. The court was asked whether a propensity to commit robberies was a sufficiently serious threat to society to allow expulsion. However it first had to asked whether it could consider this point which had not been addressed on application for leave to appeal.
Held: The court could address such a point while re-affirming the principles in Robinson. There was no existing guidance on the point at issue. The 2004 Directive made a distinction between offences of dishonesty and offences of violence. The tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the defendant posed a serious threat of violence.
Judges:
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Smith
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 806, Times 25-Jul-2008, [2009] 2 WLR 992, [2009] QB 536
Links:
Statutes:
Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No 1003), Citizens Directive 2004/38/EEC (OJ June 29, 2004 L229/35)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte and Similar CA 11-Oct-1996
The Court of Appeal could only deal with an appeal on points of law arising from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, it could only allow an appeal on points of law in respect of which the tribunal had jurisdiction, either . .
Cited – Van Duyn v Home Office ECJ 4-Dec-1974
LMA Miss Van Duyn, a Dutch national, wished to enter the UK to take up work with the Church of Scientology. Art 48EC (new Art.39EC) confers rights on the individuals of each Member State to go to another MS (host . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, European
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.270703