(Northern Ireland) The appellant (born in Tunisia) was made subject to a deportation order. He had married a UK citizen and they had a child. After moving to the UK, at various times, the relationship broke down and he was convicted of several offences. The most serious was for an assault with a weapon which he said had been on Loyalist paramilitaries and had been provoked by their racist remarks. He said that a deportation would infringe his Article 8 rights
Held: There was nothing which should have prompted them to make further enquiries as to the best interests of the children. There is nothing at all to suggest that the best interests of these children require that their father should remain in the United Kingdom. Of course there will be cases where fuller inquiries are warranted or where the best interests of children do outweigh the public interest in deportation or removal. This is emphatically not one of them.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Thomas
 UKSC 59,  Imm AR 538,  3 All ER 1,  INLR 222, UKSC 2015/0092
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summaryd
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55
Appeal from – Makhlouf, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 26-Nov-2014
Appeal against deportation order. He court was asked: ‘(1) Did the Secretary of State err in deciding to deport the appellant under the mandatory power conferred by section 32 of the 2007 Act?
(2) Did the Upper Tribunal err in law in failing . .
Cited – Berrehab v The Netherlands ECHR 21-Jun-1988
Family life arises ipso jure as between father and child where the child was conceived in wedlock. Divorce and separation do not bring family life between the child and the absent parent to an end, even if the divorce leads to a significant period . .
Cited – Sylvester v Austria ECHR 24-Apr-2003
Effective respect for family life required that future family relations between parent and child are not determined by the passage of time alone . .
Cited – Singh v Entry Clearance Officer New Delhi CA 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, an 8 year old boy, became part of his Indian family who lived in England, through an adoption recognised in Indian Law, but not in English Law. Though the adoption was genuine, his family ties had not been broken in India. The family . .
Cited – Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland ECHR 6-Jul-2010
(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him . .
Cited – Re H-B (Contact) CA 22-Apr-2015
F’s appeal against orders made on his application for contact refusing him direct contact. . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – Ferrari v Romania ECHR 28-Apr-2015
Cited – Re A (A Child) CA 6-Sep-2013
In the context of an intractable contact dispute, firmer case management may be required lest the family care system itself should contribute to the failure to develop a relationship with both parents, thereby violating the child’s article 8 rights . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 March 2021; Ref: scu.571292