Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 386 (Nov)
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Brooke, Buxton and Sedley LJJ

Representation Ramby de Mello and Sabinder Juss (instructed by the Coventry Law Centre) for the appellant.
  Lisa Giovannetti (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 29 November 2005

Catchwords

Immigration - Deportation - Expiration of leave to remain in United Kingdom - Human rights - Effect of previous decision of Court of Appeal resolving same issues - Whether Immigration Appeal Tribunal applying correct test to question of proportionality - , Sch 1, Pt 1, art 8.

The Case

Having declined to find a distinction between the opinions of Lord Bingham and Baroness Hale in the case of R (on the application of Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department , and applying the case of ZT v Secretary of State for the Home Department , the Court of Appeal held that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had not erred in law in holding that the adjudicator, in allowing the appellant's appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to return her to Uganda, had not applied a sufficiently demanding test to determine whether the appellant's rights under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.

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