In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - On Appeal from the Upper Tribunal - Immigration & Asylum Chamber
This is an appeal by a foreign criminal against a deportation decision. The main issue in this appeal is whether certain statements of principle by the European Court of Human Rights in Maslov v Austria ...Application no. 1638/03, 23rd June 2008) are applicable to foreign criminals who are unlawfully present in the host country.
The appellant is a national of Zimbabwe born on 14th September 1990. He came to the United Kingdom with his sister on 12th April 2000. He was then aged 9 years and 7 months. The Secretary of State granted him leave to enter as a visitor for 6 months. He was subsequently granted leave to remain as a student until 30th April 2002. The appellant did not return to Zimbabwe by that date, but remained living in the UK with his parents and sister.
In August 2002 the appellant's father made a claim for asylum, naming the appellant as one of his dependants. The Secretary of State rejected that claim. The father unsuccessfully appealed against the refusal of his claim. The appellant subsequently made an asylum and human rights claim in his own right in 2008, in response to a liability to removal notice from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State rejected that claim. The appellant's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against that decision failed on 24 May 2011.
While the appellant and his sister were living in this country, they enjoyed the benefits of a UK education up to the age of 18. The sister put that education to good use. She completed an IT apprenticeship and embarked upon paid employment. The appellant followed a different path. He embarked upon a career of crime.
Between 2007 and 2011 the appellant committed numerous criminal offences. These included attempted robbery, robbery, possessing an intimation firearm, theft, possession of Class B and Class C drugs, breaches of anti-social behaviour order, threatening behaviour with intent to cause fear of violence, possessing articles for use in fraud, breach of bail and many similar offences. The appellant received a variety of custodial and non-custodial sentences. The custodial sentences ranged between three months and eight months in length. Shortly stated, the appellant was a menace to the community. He caused distress to a large number of victims. He put others to considerable expense and made repeated demands upon the criminal justice system.
Unsurprisingly the Secretary of State concluded that the deportation of the appellant to Zimbabwe would be conducive to the public good. On 10th November 2011 she served a deportation notice on the appellant.
The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order on the grounds that deportation would be a breach of his rights under ECHR article 8. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appellant appealed from there to the Upper Tribunal on essentially the same grounds. By a determination promulgated on the 29th April 2013 the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appellant's further appeal.
The appellant was aggrieved by the Upper Tribunal's decision. Accordingly he appealed to the Court of Appeal.