The Supreme Court on the correct approach to parental misconduct and the reasonableness and unduly harsh tests

In relation to the “new” Rules introduced in July 2012 and the new statutory framework set out in Part 5A of the 2002 Act, giving the leading judgement, Lord Carnwath in the Supreme Court, in KO (Nigeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2018] UKSC 53 (24 October 2018) had the following stinging criticisms to impart:

 

“……….It is profoundly unsatisfactory that a set of provisions which was intended to provide clear guidelines to limit the scope for judicial evaluation should have led to such disagreement among some of the most experienced Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal judges. Rather than attempt a detailed analysis of all these impressive but conflicting judgments, I hope I will be forgiven for attempting a simpler and more direct approach. I start with the expectation that the purpose is to produce a straightforward set of rules, and in particular to narrow rather than widen the residual area of discretionary judgment for the court to take account of public interest or other factors not directly reflected in the wording of the statute. I also start from the presumption, in the absence of clear language to the contrary, that the provisions are intended to be consistent with the general principles relating to the “best interests” of children, including the principle that “a child must not be blamed for matters for which he or she is not responsible, such as the conduct of a parent” (see Zoumbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 74, [2013] 1 WLR 3690, para 10 per Lord Hodge)”.

 

Continue reading

Article 8 Private life claims: Positive value contribution to community must be very significant for a claim to succeed

Several issues arose in Thakrar (Cart JR, Art 8, Value to Community) [2018] UKUT 336 (IAC) (19 September 2018), one of them being whether the Claimant’s UK resident family as “ clear and overwhelming net contributors to the UK economy”, should be a relevant factor to be taken into account and carry weight in the Claimant’s Article 8 claim.

Continue reading

Liability to administrative removal, RED Notices, removal windows and injunctions: Your frequently asked questions answered

The following heads of consideration are raised in detail below:

 

  • Liability to non- EEA Administrative Removal

  • Notice of liability to Administrative Removal- RED Notices

  • Judicial Review

  • Notices of removal

  • Removal- the Notice Periods

  • Deferral of Notice Periods

  • Deferral of Removal

  • Injunctions

  • Rule 39 Indications from the European Court of Human Rights

  • Relevant Home Office policy Guidance

 

Continue reading