Held that in deportation cases on grounds of criminal offending, a balance had to be struck under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 with a proper appreciation of the special situation of those who had been in the host country since childhood.
Art. 08 Right to Private and Family Life, Asylum & Immigration LawArticles in: Asylum & Immigration Law
(1) JO (Uganda) (2) JT (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
February 3, 2010 | No CommentsKhan v United Kingdom Application No 47486/06
February 3, 2010 | No CommentsContribution by Maria Clarke
The ECHR ruled unanimously that the deportation of a Pakistani national who had resided in the UK since he was three years old would be a breach of Art 8 of the ECHR if carried through.
Taking account of the time spent in UK, the lack of ties with Pakistan, the strength of his ties to UK and …
Omojudi v United Kingdom
December 17, 2009 | No CommentsThe ECHR decided that deporting a sex offender who had indefinite leave to remain in UK and had lived in UK for 26 years was a breach of Art 8. The deportation was an interference with the applicant’s private and family life and was not proportionate.
See Times Law Report December 15 2009
Maria Clarke
R (on the application of EW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 2957 (Admin)
December 14, 2009 | No CommentsW, an asylum seeker of Eritrean nationality, sought judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State which certified that W’s human rights claim to remain in the UK was clearly unfounded. W had illegally entered the UK, and had been arrested and detained. Fingerprint checks against the European fingerprint database uncovered that the appellant had previously …
Art. 03 Prohibition of Torture, Asylum & Immigration Law, EU Law, Misc.R (on the application of A) (FC) (Appellant) v London Borough of Croydon (Respondents); and one other action R (on the application of M) (FC) (Appellant) v London Borough of Lambeth (Respondents) and one other action [2009] UKSC 8
December 14, 2009 | No CommentsThe appeals of two asylum seekers (X and M) against a decision that they were adults and so were not entitled to be accommodated as children, were allowed by the Supreme Court. The appellants claimed to be under 18, however, the local authorities determined that they were in fact over 18.
Art. 06 Right to a Fair Trial, Art. 08 Right to Private and Family Life, Asylum & Immigration Law
Subscribe RSS
Comment RSS
