The UK Border Agency just got permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal on these grounds, reproduced word for word in their entirety:
The Judge of the First-tier Tribunal has made a material error of law in the determination in the following way.
The judge has erred by failing to take into account a particular public interest factor.
(1) The panel has failed to refer anywhere in the determination to the expression of revulsion that the public are entitled to have taken into account with attendant weight ascribed in the proportionality assessment under Article 8. Even when taking into account as a primary consideration the best interests of the child, this interest will not always as a certainty outweigh the right of the public to rid its’ shores of a violent criminal who has been sentenced to x years and y months imprisonment for a knife crime.
There is no (2). The determination is in reality a very careful and well considered piece of grammatically correct work, although it is true that it lacks the glamorous hyperbole that the grounds of appeal demand. It is, to say the least, a little surprising that permission was granted on grounds that are so heavy on assertion and light on analysis.
I know there has been an influx of new blood at the UK Border Agency but I had not realised Paul Dacre was himself now crafting grounds of appeal.