Welfare of child not a trump card against deportation

29 November 2013 by

aeroplane in sunset Zoumbas (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) On appeal from the Inner House of the Court of Session, [2012] CSIH 87 [2013] UKSC 74 – read judgment


The Supreme Court has clarified the principles to be applied when considering the welfare of children in deportation cases. The following summary is based on the Supreme Court’s Press Summary.

The appellant (Mr Z) and his wife (Mrs Z) are nationals of the Republic of Congo currently living in Glasgow with their three children, now aged 9, 5 and 2. Mr Z entered the UK illegally in May 2001 using a French passport that did not belong to him. He married Mrs Z in November 2003 after she had entered the previous year using a forged French passport and both their asylum claims had been refused. Their appeals were unsuccessful . In October 2005 Mrs Z and the couple’s daughter (A) were detained and removed to Congo. For the following ten months, Mr Z was treated as an absconder having failed to report to the authorities.

In March 2006, Mrs Z and A returned to the UK using fake passports and a residence permit that did not belong to them. Mrs Z claimed asylum, naming Mr Z and A as dependents. Her claim was refused and her appeal finally dismissed on 3 July 2007. The couple did not have permission to work but received state benefits because Mr Z claimed he was destitute. However, between September 2008 and April 2010, credits of over £27,000 from unidentified sources were paid into bank accounts of Mrs Zoumbas and of the older two children.

In June 2010, Mr Z submitted further representations asserting that there had been a change in circumstances because the family had established a family life which should be respected under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In a letter dated 4 October 2011, the Secretary of State intimated her decision that his representations did not qualify him for asylum or humanitarian protection and that he did not merit a grant of limited leave to enter or remain. She also held that his submissions did not amount to a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules because they did not create a reasonable prospect of success before an immigration judge. Mr Z challenged that decision for the manner in which the Secretary of State dealt with the best interests of his children. His petition for judicial review was refused, and his appeal to the Inner House dismissed.

Before the Supreme Court, Mr Z made his challenge in three parts.

First, he argued that the Secretary of State had failed to have regard to the best interests of his children as a primary consideration in the proportionality assessment under article 8, and that this was also a breach of section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. He submitted, relying on what Lord Kerr said in the Supreme Court’s judgment in ZH (Tanzania), that what is determined to be in the child’s best interests should ordinarily dictate the outcome of cases.

Second, he criticised the Secretary of State’s findings in relation to the best interests of the children, including by arguing that it was irrational to conclude that these would be served by the children’s removal to Congo. The findings had assumed that he and his wife would be removed.

Third, he contended that the Secretary of State was wrong to conclude that his further representations did not have a realistic prospect of success before an immigration judge.

The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. 

Reasoning behind the judgment

References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment 

Delivering the Court’s judgment, Lord Hodge set out seven principles relevant in the case [10], which counsel for Mr Z had enumerated. He noted that Lord Kerr’s formulation spoke of dictating the outcome of cases “such as” ZH, and in that case the Court was dealing with British citizens, unlike the children in this case. The benefits of British citizenship were an important factor in assessing whether it is reasonable to expect a child with such citizenship to live in another country. Moreover, Lord Kerr had explained that what he was seeking to say was that no factor should be given greater weight than the interests of a child [12]. Further, the decision-maker is required to assess the proportionality of the interference in the particular circumstances in which the decision is made – an evaluative exercise that excludes any hard-edged or bright line general rule [13]

In this case, the Secretary of State accepted that Mr Z had established a private life and a family life in the UK. She then concluded that the interference would be in accordance with the law and in pursuit of the legitimate aim of maintaining effective immigration control, having referred to the family’s unlawful residence, the fact that family life had been established in the full knowledge that they had no right to reside in the UK and could be removed at any time, and the couple’s “appalling immigration history” and the unidentified bank credits. Family life would be preserved as the whole family would be removed with Mr Z.

The first part of Mr Zoumbas’ challenge rested on a mistaken construction of the decision letter. It had been accepted that the status of the well-being the children as a primary consideration did not mean that it had in every case to be considered first with other possible countervailing issues considered thereafter. It was important to read the letter as a whole and to analyse the substance of the decision [19].

There was nothing wrong with the Secretary of State’s use of a template letter in which her conclusion is followed by her reasoning – what was important was that the best interests of the children were at the forefront of the decision-maker’s mind. That the conclusions on best interests were set out briefly does not mean they were not considered carefully, and the Secretary of State did not need to record and deal with every piece of evidence in her letter [22-23]. The Court suggested that challenges such as the present would be less likely if her advisers were to express the test in the way it was expressed in ZH (Tanzania), and to expand the explanation of the separate consideration given to the interests of the children [28].

As for the second part of the challenge, it would be possible to conclude, other things being equal, that it would be in the children’s best interests to stay in the UK. But other things are not equal, including that the children were not British citizens [24]. The Court rejected the criticism that the assessment of best interests was flawed because it assumed that the parents would be removed. It was legitimate for the decision-maker to ask herself first whether it would have been proportionate to remove the parents if they had no children and then, in considering the best interests of the children in the proportionality exercise, ask whether their well-being altered that provisional balance [25].

The third part of the challenge could not succeed, the first two parts having failed [26].

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



  1. CGB "Diplock" says:

    The SSHD approach is unrealistic and lack compassionate consideration of the real circumstances in reality as to what the “best interest” really means and it’s then boling down it seems to the strength of the emotional arguments as perceived by the judges. Firstly there ought to be a definition far wider and more detailed as for “best interest’ where deportation cases are concerned as the current ideology appears to be based on guidelines and terminologies as used by social services throughout the UK.\

    Secondly, proper considerations are not being given to the cultural and racial aspects of children’s relationships with the parent the SSHD proposes is deported. Judges are sticking too rigidly to the ambit of the ECHR Art 8 and not enough is done to cover the wider areas of importance as they relates to a deportation case.

    While the current deficits in the approaches continues with the SSHD and the courts then there will undoubtedly continue to be discrimination of children whose best interests are not given the proper assessment and consideration as they ought to by the government side and the court.

  2. John Jones says:

    It would appear that asylum law, in it’s present state, allows foreigners to act illegally without repercussion and to live in the host country for the better part of a decade while exacting both a stipend and free legal funding, as well as all other social services. I should think that something needs adjustment if this large expense simply results in yet another deportation years and years down the track, ‘maybe’. Will they be back again with more false identity, again with no repercussions?

  3. rose white says:

    How do these people get benefits when they have such inflated bank accounts when a white English pensioner like myself has to take a means test and produce banks accounts before we get paid a penny benefits.

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: