Immigration

The strength in depth to give

you need.

Immigration News

• Articles/News

Home | Immigration | News

Even a serious criminal conviction may not allow the interference with Article 8 ECHR Rights by Pinar Coktas (20 December 2011)

In AA v United Kingdom (8000/08) [2011] ECHR 1345 (20 September 2011), the Strasbourg Court held that the deportation of a Nigerian citizen, who had arrived in the UK at the age of 13 and who at the age of 15 had been convicted of raping a 13 year old girl, for which he was sentenced to 4 years youth detention, would violate his Article 8 right to respect for his private life. The applicant was a young adult with no partner or children of his own and his close relationship with his mother constituted part of his private life.

It was considered that since his release from detention seven years ago the applicant had done nothing to support the government's contention that his deportation was necessary for the 'prevention of disorder or crime'.

Section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as substituted by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) provides that a person who is not a British citizen shall be liable to deportation from the United Kingdom if “the Secretary of State deems his deportation to be conducive to the public good”.

Section 5 provides that:

“(1) Where a person is under section 3(5) or (6) above liable to deportation, then subject to the following provisions of this Act the Secretary of State may make a deportation order against him ... and a deportation order against a person shall invalidate any leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given him before the order is made or while it is in force.


An interference, however, has to be justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 ECHR as being “in accordance with the law”, as pursuing one or more of the legitimate aims listed and as being “necessary in a democratic society” in order to achieve the aim or aims concerned.


The applicant in the present case committed a single offence and had produced reports indicating that his risk of reoffending was low. Further, the AIT in its judgment of April 2007 accepted that there was a low risk that the applicant would reoffend. It was also considered to be of some significance that the deportation order served on the applicant in July 2004 did not refer to the aims of “public safety” or “protection of the rights of others”.

Where deportation is intended to satisfy the aim of preventing disorder or crime, the period of time which has passed since the offence was committed and the applicant’s conduct throughout that period was stated to be particularly significant. Furthermore, it was noted that in cases where the deportation offence was committed by the applicant when he was a minor, the minor would have been part of programmes for the reintegration into society. Thus while the fact that the applicant was a minor when he committed the offence does not preclude his deportation given the seriousness of the offence in question, the consideration was carefully weighed against the applicant’s exemplary conduct and, as the evidence before the court was stated to demonstrate, the commendable efforts to rehabilitate himself and to reintegrate into society over a period of seven years.

In such circumstances, the Government are required to provide further support for their contention that the applicant can reasonably be expected to cause disorder or to engage in criminal activities such as to render his deportation necessary in a democratic society. However, the Government had neither cited other relevant concerns nor submitted any documents capable of supporting such a contention.

These considerations, inter alia, were found sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant’s deportation from the United Kingdom would be disproportionate to the legitimate aim of the “prevention of disorder and crime” and would therefore not be necessary in a democratic society.

This case clearly illustrates that it may not be the end of the road for an applicant who may have served a lengthy sentence if he can establish strong Article 8 rights.