Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 23, 2008, [2008] 4 All ER 798,[2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin)

Extract

---

Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 23, 2008, [2008] 4 All ER 798,[2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin)

Approved judgment

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin)

Case No: CO/11595/20077 and CO/5121/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 23rd May 2008

Before :

THE HON MR JUSTICE BLAKE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. R. Husain and Mr. R Toal (instructed by Wilson & Co)) for Etame and

Mr. R. Husain and Ms. R. Kotak (instructed by Turpin & Miller) for Anirah

Ms. E. Laing QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants

Hearing date: 18th April 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

Mr. Justice Blake

Introduction

1. These two applications for judicial review have been heard together because they raise a common issue of law of some general importance in asylum and human rights appeals. Both claimants applied to the defendant Secretary of State to have deportation orders made against them revoked on asylum or human rights grounds. These applications were rejected. Both had previously made asylum or human rights claims that were the subject of adverse determinations and unsuccessful appeals before the deportation orders were signed. Both claim to have the right of appeal with suspensive effect (that is to say an appeal from within the United Kingdom) as a result of this immigration history and the proper meaning of s. 92(4)(a) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

The case of Anirah

2. In the case of Mr. Anirah this is the sole issue. He is a Nigerian national who entered the United Kingdom as a visitor in 1988, was given leave to remain as a student, married a British citizen in August 1991 and was granted indefinite leave to remain on the basis of that marriage in May 1995. There are four children of that marriage aged between 10 and 16. He undoubtedly has resided lawfully in this country for a long time and during that residence has established a home, family and private life that deserves respect within the meaning of Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

3. However on the 2nd March 2001 he was convicted of a conspiracy to import into the country a large quantity of Class A drugs and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. On the 20th May 2005 the Secretary of State decided to deport Mr. Anirah on grounds conducive to the public good pursuant to s. 3(5) Immigration Act 1971 and the immigration rules applicable to such decisions: HC 395 paragraphs 362 to 364. Mr. Anirah appealed against this decision and contended amongst other things that deportation at the end of the lengthy prison sentence he was serving for his criminal conduct was an interference with his right to family life and was not justified in the broader interests of the community applying Article 8(2) ECHR. By the time of the appeal the marriage had broken down and the wife had inst...

See the full content of this document

---