Source: http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-hesham-ali-iraq-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2016-uksc-60-part-one/
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 22:22:49
Document Index: 784261043

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'UKSC ']

Case Comment: Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 Part One – UKSCBlog
Case Comment: Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 Part One
At the heart of this appeal is whether the Strasbourg case law on art 8 and removals permits a prescriptive approach to the balance to be struck in a case concerning family and private life contained in domestic rules or policy, as opposed to a free-standing case by case analysis weighing up the specific factors in the particular case and deciding where the balance lies. The Immigration Rules go much further than merely adopting a presumptive weight to be given to the public interest in deportation. They both set out stringent criteria which must be fulfilled in order for an individual to succeed under art 8 which in practice are likely to be irrelevant in all but a small number of cases. They also stipulate a very high threshold – exceptional circumstances – which must be met for those cases which do not fall within the narrow list of exceptions to the presumptive force in favour of deportation. The changes to the Rules had in principle a legitimate aim, namely to promote consistency, predictability and transparency in decision-making where issues under art 8 arose. The changes were also said to reflect the Government and Parliament’s view of how, as a matter of public policy, the balance should be struck between the right to respect for private and family life and the public interest in public safety by protecting the public from foreign criminals.
On appeal the majority held (6:1) that the Rules were compatible with ECHR, art 8 albeit that the Court of Appeal were wrong in an earlier case (MF (Nigeria) [2014] 1 WLR 544) to construe the Rules as a ‘complete code’. They also held that on a statutory construction of the provisions of the Borders Act 2007 there was no difficulty with a situation where the statute required the Secretary of State to make a deportation order even though it could not be executed because to do so would be a breach of ECHR rights. The statutory position could be made sense of if the situation was viewed as being a temporary one i.e. because the human rights situation in the receiving country might change. Lord Kerr dissented save in respect of the ‘complete code’ issue in a careful and detailed exposition of the issues running to 30 pages (half of the judgment).
However, the majority decision to effect that the prescriptive nature of the balancing exercise in the Rules is compatible with ECHR, art 8 as being within the ‘margin of appreciation’ of state administrative policy is more problematic and requires closer consideration.
First, the speech of Lord Wilson refers to the public support in favour of deportation of foreign criminals although he expressly disavows his previous use of the term “society’s revulsion at serious crimes” as being “too emotive a concept to figure in this analysis”. This would seem to strike at the heart of an underlying issue, namely that whilst there may well be great public support for measures, that support may be of limited use in assessing whether the interference with a right is justified by a pressing social need. It is possible to think of many areas in criminal justice where large swathes of the public may wish to see very draconian laws which are wholly incompatible with fundamental rights in a democratic society.
Leave a reply on "Case Comment: Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 Part One"