Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 335 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2008] UKHL 39
Court: House of Lords
Judge:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Representation Richard Drabble QC and Sonali Naik (instructed by Irving & Co) for the appellant.
  Monica Carrs-Frisk QC and Adam Robb (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 25 June 2008

Catchwords

Immigration - Leave to remain - Refusal of leave - Appeal - Asylum seeker claiming on facts removal amounting to unlawful interference with right to respect for private and family life - Tribunal and Court of Appeal determining question to be determined only by reference to the asylum seeker's right to family life - Whether also necessary to consider asylum seeker's family's right to family life in relation to the asylum seeker's return - s 65.

The Case

Immigration Leave to remain. Section65 of the (now ss82 and 84 of the ) allowed, indeed required, the appellate authorities, in determining whether an asylum seeker's art8 rights had been breached, to take into account the effect of his proposed removal upon all the members of his family unit. Together those members enjoyed a single family life and whether or not the removal would interfere disproportionately with it had to be looked at by reference to the family unit as a whole and the impact of removal upon each member. If overall the removal would be disproportionate, all affected family members were to be regarded as victims.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.