Archives For Deportation

By coffee bee, on Flickr

Today the new out of country deportation appeal provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 came into force, at least in part. The new regime enables the Secretary of State to require any appeal against deportation to be brought from abroad only, both in UK law and EU law cases. This post looks at the statutory power, the Home Office guidance and some of the possibilities for bringing judicial review applications against the exercise of such powers. Continue Reading…

Plane taking off

From today the Secretary of State has the power to certify deportation appeals so as to permit them only to be brought from abroad. The power is introduced by section 17 of the Immigration Act 2014, amending into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 a new section 94B.

The Home Office has issued new guidance on both non EEA and EEA deportation cases. As expected, the Home Office intends to certify in cases where there is no “real risk of serious irreversible harm.” I will return to the guidance in a separate post on the subject.

Existing appeals can be certified under section 94B. The effect is extremely limited on existing appeals, though: there seems to be no effect at all, in fact. Continue Reading…

Cases arriving on luggage carousel

The luggage carousel of the tribunal’s reporting committee has spewed forth a fresh batch of cases. Two of them concern deportation, one under domestic primary legislation and the other under European Union law. The facts are very different but the cases illustrate well the stark differences between domestic and EU law on deportation. Continue Reading…

By Tom Page

The Supreme Court has allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of R (on the application of Fitzroy George) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 28. The Court of Appeal’s judgment was previously covered here on Free Movement.

To summarise the issues involved, I cannot do better than Lord Hughes, who gives the admirably clear single judgment:

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? It is common ground that the making of a deportation order renders his leave to remain invalid. The question in this appeal is whether, if the deportation order is revoked, his leave revives or whether the Secretary of State is at that stage free to consider afresh what leave to grant to him. Continue Reading…

DRC map

In R (on the application of P (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 3879 (Admin), handed down on 9 December 2013, Mr Justice Philips held that P would be at risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR if deported to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He stated that he reached this conclusion “with considerable regret” [paragraph 54] but was persuaded by the objective material. The risk does not extend to failed asylum seekers for whom the position remains the same as in BK (Failed Asylum Seekers) DRC CG [2007] UKAIT 00098. Continue Reading…

Theresa May spent over a year saying her new immigration rules would weaken Article 8 rights for “foreign criminals” but conceded the point within a day at the Court of Appeal.

MF (Nigeria) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 1192 makes clear that the Immigration Rules governing deportation now provide a ‘complete code’ for the Article 8 rights of foreign criminals. But they do not change the substantive law relating to Article 8 proportionality assessments and do not create a legal test of exceptionality for succeeding where the Rules are not met.

Continue Reading…

Vasconcelos (risk- rehabilitation) [2013] UKUT 00378 (IAC)

The tribunal isn’t bound by a NOMS risk assessment report when it isn’t high risk. But is bound when it is high risk.

Also the tribunal comes down like a tonne of bricks on a claimant’s representative who failed to comply with procedure rules and directions. We are, I think, yet to see any equivalent regarding serial and chronic Home Office failures.

timthumb.phpThe London-based research group Corporate Watch has just published a 20-page briefing examining the lawfulness the UK’s mass deportation charter flights. Part of a forthcoming report by Corporate Watch and the campaign group Stop Deportations, it aims to provide campaigners and legal practitioners with some arguments and tools with which to challenge the legality of these flights. This post provides a short summary of the main arguments and findings.

The main focus of the briefing is Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which prohibits the “collective expulsion of aliens.”

Continue Reading…

Operation Nexus

Sarah Pinder — 

Operation NexusThe Met Police website tells us that:

Operation Nexus, designed and delivered by the MPS and UKBA, aims to maximise intelligence, information and world wide links to improve how we deal with and respond to foreign nationals breaking the law.

AC Rowley, in charge of Specialist Crime and Operations at the Met also states that:

Nexus is dealing with those people who we catch offending, but also takes a long term preventative approach by stopping people from returning or being able to arrive in the first place.

Last week Friday, Operation Nexus featured on the front page of The Times newspaper (for those with the subscription) as the focus of the Operation seemed to be gathering momentum in assisting with the deportation of not only those who have committed crimes but also worryingly, those who may only have been suspected of having done so.  This follows in particular the case of Mr Farquharson, who was apparently deported last month.  Readers of the blog may recall that his case was recently the subject of a reported determination from the Upper Tribunal: Farquharson (removal – proof of conduct) Jamaica [2013] UKUT 146 (IAC).

The issues considered by Mr Justice Blake and Sir Jeffrey James were that the appellant,  Mr Farquharson, had been disadvantaged at the FTT hearing, being a litigant in person and having been served with a lot of police material by the Home Office Presenting Officer on the day of the hearing without being given sufficient opportunity to address this in response.  Furthermore, the Upper Tribunal considered the issue of conduct and when and how this can be established in the context of a deportation appeal.

When considering the various factors under Para 395C of the Immigration Rules in relation to the appellant’s case, the Upper Tribunal stated on Mr Farquharson’s ‘Personal history, including character, conduct and employment record’:

We have extensively reviewed his personal conduct above. We are satisfied to the appropriate civil balance that he has used violence and inflicted injury on women when his wishes are frustrated. We are further satisfied that he is forceful in making his sexual demands and his conduct leaves many partners very frightened and anxious to get away from him. We note the persistence of his conduct despite a number of arrests, charges and criminal trials. We note the opinions expressed by his neighbours in the 2011 incident. This occurred at a time when his application for discretionary leave was outstanding. Taken together, we are entirely satisfied that his past treatment of women  strongly supports an assessment that he presents a real risk of future harm to women, in particular women are who are vulnerable  by reason of addiction, mental capacity or  personal circumstances.

The matter was then listed for a ‘re-hearing’ and presumably, Mr Farquharson’s appeal was dismissed resulting in his deportation.

Renaissance Chambers is proud to see that Colin Yeo was called upon by The Times’ Crime Editor, Sean O’Neill, and quoted in Friday’s article drawing the readers’ attention to Operation Nexus’ practice, in the context of those merely suspected of committing a crime.  Colin stated as follows:

There is a lower standard of proof in the immigration tribunal and it is easier for the authorities to dispose of a person via that system than using the criminal justice system.  The concern is that this offloads the problem to another country.  There is also a worry that the immigration tribunal does not provide the same safeguards for a defendant that are built into the criminal justice system.  People can be deported on quite limited evidence.

The Times article highlights that Mr Farquharson was tried for one incident in February 2007 but the jury failed to reach a verdict.  In May 2007, he was tried for another alleged rape but again the jury could not reach a verdict and a re-trial in October of the same year resulted in another hung jury.  This is in contrast with the findings set out above by the Upper Tribunal, which of course would have been on the lower civil standard of proof.

In addition, the social and cultural ramifications of these practices are incredibly worrying and are highlighted by Rita Chadha, Chief Executive of the Refugee and Migrant Forum of East London, cited in the Guardian article on Operation Nexus published on 6 June 2013:

When Nexus first began we were reassured it was only about people who had criminal convictions in this country or in their home countries and who were very high risk.

What we are seeing now is that they are targeting all crimes and low level criminality. This is going to stop victims coming forward in the black and ethnic minority communities because they fear they will be targeted by Nexus. If you have a woman suffering domestic violence in a household of overstayers she is not going to come forward.

This is totally going to mess up local policing and any trust communities have in the police.

For further background information and analysis on Operation Nexus, see here and here.