Asylum tribunal must think properly about private life

26 November 2010 by

HM (Iraq) v The secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 – Read judgment

The Court of Appeal has overruled the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’s decision to deport a 25-year-old Iraqi citizen who had lived in the UK since he was 12 and had recently been sent to prison for drug dealing, on the basis that it did not think carefully enough about his human rights to private and family life.

The decision – which is unusually concise and easy to follow – highlights the careful balancing exercise which an asylum and immigration tribunal must undertake in order to weigh up whether a person’s human rights to private and family life outweigh the public good of sending them back to their home country. In this case, although HM won his appeal, his case must now be reheard – for a third time – by an asylum tribunal.

HM moved to the UK in 1997 from Iraq at age 12. He had resorted to serious crime whilst living in the UK and had been imprisoned in 2008 for 16 months for possessing class A and C drugs with an intent to supply.

A decision was made to deport HM on the basis that it would be conducive to the public good. In a letter to HM, the Secretary of State accepted that the appellant had an established private life, but a family life in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State went on to say that deporting the appellant to Iraq would not give rise to a breach of Article 8. Such a deportation would be justified under the provisions of Article 8.2. Article 8 is the right to private and family life. It is a ‘qualified’ right, which means that it can lawfully breached if that breach is necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

TM appealed the decision and won on the basis that he had in fact established a family life in the UK – his mother, father and two sisters gave evidence to that effect – and considered that in fact the removal was not proportionate.

The secretary of state appealed the decision. The senior immigration judge who heard the appeal rejigged the balancing exercise for the second time, this time ruling that the tribunal had failed to weigh in the balance the seriousness of the appellant’s offence and the risk of reoffending.This meant that the case had to be reheard by another immigration panel. Again TM called evidence from his mother and two sisters. He did not call his girlfriend, who was serving a prison sentence at the time.

The new panel concluded that the appellant had not established family life in the UK as between himself, his mother and his sisters. By this time, of course, all of those individuals were adult, so there was no longer any dependency between them. It then considered private life, and found that whilst he may have established a private life in the UK, article 8 was not in fact engaged.

TM appealed to the court of appeal. Lord Justice Jackson was satisfied by the lower court’s ruling on family life, but concerned by its approach to private life: it had ruled that even though it “may” be that it can be argued that article 8 was engaged, “he will be able to exercise his private life in Iraq if he is returned there”.

Having established that there may be private life in the UK, the tribunal should then, but failed to, have considered the European Court of Human Rights case-law on how to apply the relevant balancing exercise. Specifically, the case ofUner v Netherlands [2006] ECHR 464 10/99 sets out relevant criteria to assess whether an expulsion was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see paras 57 to 59). These include, for example, the nature and seriousness of the offence committed, the time elapsed since it had been committed, and the details of the applicant’s family situation.

The court of appeal went on to consider what would have happened if the lower court had properly weighed up the factors mentioned in Uner. It found that

Criterion 10, namely “the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination”, is important. This is because the applicant came to the UK at the age of twelve; the applicant spent all of his teenage years in this country. The panel does not address criterion 10 and does not weigh it in the balance. (para 35)

The court emphasised that the lower tribunal need not have “written a lengthy treatise” on the issues under article 8. But it must consider them to some extent. It therefore allowed the appeal and sent the case back down for another tribunal to consider the facts afresh, and with proper consideration of the relevant factors on private and family life.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: