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: The appeal failed. The critical issue was whether family life existed at the date of the hearing. The Tribunal found that it did and there was a family life such as to engage Article 8 immediately before the offence was committed. The judge had not diminished the seriousness of the offence. It carried a maximum of life imprisonment, the guidelines suggested between 4 and 6 years, and yet he had been sentenced to 2 years. As to the proportionality exercise it is necessary to form a view where on the scale of seriousness the respondent’s conduct comes so that the Article 8 considerations can properly be balanced against the Rule 364 presumption. In some cases the seriousness of the offence is so overwhelming as to trump all else. This, however, was not a case, serious as it was, where the gravity was such that deportation was virtually inevitable albeit there would have to be compelling reasons to allow the respondent to remain here.
Sedley LJ, Rimer LJ, Baker LJ
 EWCA Civ 583
Immigration Rules 364, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited – Kugathas v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-Jan-2003
Sedley LJ considered the circumstances where the Secretary of state should take into account the defendant’s article 8 human rights when considering deportation after serving a sentence of imprisonment: ‘Generally, the protection of family life . .
Cited – N (Kenya) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Aug-2004
The appellant a foreign national, had been convicted of very serious sex offences, and as his sentence came to an end was ordered to be deported. He appealed saying this infringed his right to a family life.
Held: The court had to balance the . .
Cited – AC (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 25-Mar-2009
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 . .
Cited – DA (Colombia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 13-Jul-2009
Cited – OP (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-May-2008
The applicant had been granted leave to stay. He was convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be deported on release. The Home Secretary appealed an overturning of the AIT decision in his favour, and the applicant in turn now appealed saying there . .
Cited – OH (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Apr-2008
Wilson LJ considered N (Kenya) and said: ‘Primary responsibility for the public interest, whose view of it is likely to be wide and better informed than that of a tribunal, resides in the respondent and accordingly a tribunal hearing an appeal . .
Cited – Maslov v Austria ECHR 22-Mar-2007
Cited – JO (Uganda) and JT (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 22-Jan-2010
When considering an order for the deportation of a non-EU national on completion of a term of imprisonment, the actual weight to be placed on the criminal offending must depend on the seriousness of the offence(s) and the other circumstances of the . .
Cited – DS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Jun-2009
Rix LJ said that the public interest in deportation of those who commit serious crimes goes well beyond depriving the offender in question of the right to re-offend in this country; it extends to deterring and preventing serious crime generally and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.416105