European Union Immigration. The Administrative Court awarded the claimant Brazilian national damages of 136,048 for false imprisonment and breach of European Union law. The defendant Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in failing to issue him with a European Economic Area residence card on the basis of his marriage to a European Union citizen.
Criminal law Immigration. In an appeal against eight convictions for documentation offences, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that four of the defendant's convictions would be quashed. All other grounds would be dismissed.
Immigration European Economic Area (EEA) national. The Administrative Court referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union. It was unclear whether the amendment to the definition of 'EEA citizen' in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI2006-1003, and the decision that the claimant's wife, who was a Spanish national, could no longer rely on her rights as a European Union citizen under European Parliament and , within the United Kingdom following naturalisation as a British citizen, unlawfully restricted the right to free movement, under art 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Directive.
Criminal law Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of six years' imprisonment, for cruelty to a person under 16 years, servitude and assisting unlawful immigration to a member state, had not been unduly lenient. In the circumstances, the term imposed had been a well-judged sentence. Accordingly, the application for leave to refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, pursuant to s36 of the as unduly lenient, would be refused.
Immigration Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to quash her decision to refuse the claimant's application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The first basis for the tribunal's decision, that the Secretary of State had chosen to side step an earlier judicial decision by granting a short period of leave, and then disregarding it, was unsustainable and, further, the tribunal had erred in law in concluding that there was sufficient similarity in the positions of the claimant and his sister to call for an explanation by the Secretary of State for their different treatment.
Social Security Benefit. The Supreme Court dismissed two appeals regarding the eligibility for benefits of European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom. It held that the applicable Regulations did not infringe the rights of the appellants under the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union, and that it was not possible to invoke proportionality to entitle a person to have the right of residence and social assistance in another member state, save perhaps in extreme circumstances that did not apply to the appellants.
Immigration Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the refusal of indefinite leave to remain, which had been upheld by the Immigration and Asylum tribunals. At no point in the chronology of his case could the appellant have made an application for leave to remain which met the requirements of the Immigration Rules that had been in force at the time the application was made or at the time at which such application was decided.
Immigration Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the respondent's original appeal from the appellant Secretary of State's decision to deport him and allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against a determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). In the light of Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG (), a decision based on FV (Italy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department () could not be sustained.
Immigration European Economic Area nationals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) that the appellant Brazilian national had entered into a marriage of convenience with a Portuguese national in order to re-enter and remain in the United Kingdom. While the legal burden of proof lay on the Secretary of State throughout, the evidential burden could shift. The errors in law made by the FTT had not been material to the outcome.
Immigration Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the Secretary of State's appeal in a deportation case, held that, although the tribunals below had been wrong to conclude that the respondent Italian national had acquired a right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom, under reg15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, , the error had not been material to the outcome and there was, therefore, no basis upon which to set aside the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).