Share it

On appeal from [2015] EWCA Civ 1020

 

This appeal considered whether the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 94B complies with the procedural and substantive protections under ECHR, art 8. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeals, holding that the public interest in the removal of an appellant in advance of his appeal is outweighed by the public interest that a right of appeal should be effective. Thus the Supreme Court held that the policy of ‘deport first; appeal later’ is a violation of human rights as an appeal against a deportation order by reference to a claim in respect of private and family life under ECHR, art 8 should be effective, and this means there must be an opportunity for appellants to give live evidence to assist the tribunal. The Court considered that the Ministry of Justice has failed to make provision for facilities at the hearing centre, or for access to such facilities abroad, as would allow the appellants to give live evidence and participate in the hearing. Therefore the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 94B is not compliant with the procedural and substantive protections under ECHR, art 8.

For judgment, please download: [2017] UKSC 42
For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing, please visit: Supreme Court Website (15 Feb 2017 morning session) (15 Feb 2017 afternoon session) (16 Feb 2017 morning session) (16 Feb 2017 afternoon session)