Dutch man wins deportation appeal after judge messes up legal test - Moet je gevangenisstraf meetellen bij rechtmatig verblijf periode?
Article by
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Hussein v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 156 is another reminder of the multiple layers of protection from deportation which EU citizens enjoy. In particular, it focuses on the importance of a properly reasoned decision by the First-tier Tribunal about when deportation meets the “serious grounds of public policy” test in the EEA Regulations.
Mr Hussein is a Dutch citizen who arrived in the UK in 1998. Starting from when he was a teenager, Mr Hussein eventually amassed 24 convictions over a 15-year period. That included three stints in custody. In March 2016, the Home Office had had enough and made a deportation order.
(...)
The problematic bit is deciding how periods of custody are to be treated. The Court of Appeal said there were four possible answers. Time spent in jailed could be treated as:
In C-378/12 Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court of justice said that in calculating five years’ residence, the clock was reset to zero by periods of imprisonment.
When looking at ten years’ residence, the issue “remains unclear”. In the Vomero case, the Supreme Court had asked the Court of Justice to provide guidance on whether, when looking at ten years’ residence, periods of custody were to be included, but Luxembourg declined to answer that question. So the uncertainty continues.
(...)
But the appeal succeeded on a separate argument. Even if Mr Hussein was only entitled to the lesser protection of “serious grounds of public policy and public security”, the tribunal had singularly failed to actually consider and apply this test.
The judge had incorrectly stated the test as whether Mr Hussein’s conduct “represents a present threat to society”. The difference might not seem like much but it is crucial. Bean LJ held that, because of the repeated use of this phrase,
Read the whole article here: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/dutch-man-wins-deportation-appeal-after-judge-messes-up-legal-test/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dutch-man-wins-deportation-appeal-after-judge-messes-up-legal-test&utm_source=Free+Movement&utm_campaign=b57d575596-Daily+emails+everything&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-b57d575596-116334469&mc_cid=b57d575596&mc_eid=b72b4a153a
Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context. Subscribe to Vreemdelingenrecht.com blog by Email
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Hussein v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 156 is another reminder of the multiple layers of protection from deportation which EU citizens enjoy. In particular, it focuses on the importance of a properly reasoned decision by the First-tier Tribunal about when deportation meets the “serious grounds of public policy” test in the EEA Regulations.
Mr Hussein is a Dutch citizen who arrived in the UK in 1998. Starting from when he was a teenager, Mr Hussein eventually amassed 24 convictions over a 15-year period. That included three stints in custody. In March 2016, the Home Office had had enough and made a deportation order.
(...)
The problematic bit is deciding how periods of custody are to be treated. The Court of Appeal said there were four possible answers. Time spent in jailed could be treated as:
(a) being “residence” in the host state just as much as any other;The court highlighted the confusion because the Court of Justice of the European Union has taken different approaches when looking at deportations based on five years and ten years of residence.
(b) interrupting the accrual of time in the sense of pressing a pause button;
(c) interrupting the accrual of time in the sense of resetting the clock to zero; and
(d) affecting the accrual of time in a way which requires some overall, non-mathematical assessment.
In C-378/12 Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court of justice said that in calculating five years’ residence, the clock was reset to zero by periods of imprisonment.
When looking at ten years’ residence, the issue “remains unclear”. In the Vomero case, the Supreme Court had asked the Court of Justice to provide guidance on whether, when looking at ten years’ residence, periods of custody were to be included, but Luxembourg declined to answer that question. So the uncertainty continues.
(...)
But the appeal succeeded on a separate argument. Even if Mr Hussein was only entitled to the lesser protection of “serious grounds of public policy and public security”, the tribunal had singularly failed to actually consider and apply this test.
The judge had incorrectly stated the test as whether Mr Hussein’s conduct “represents a present threat to society”. The difference might not seem like much but it is crucial. Bean LJ held that, because of the repeated use of this phrase,
I cannot be satisfied that the FTT Judge, in rejecting Mr Hussein’s appeal based on his status as a permanent resident, was applying the “serious grounds of public policy or public security” test laid down by Regulation 21(3) of the 2006 Regulations.All too often, the Home Office and tribunal judges deal with all deportation cases using the same broad-brush approach. EU citizens’ status has always been inherently more secure given that they have an entitlement by law to exercise their treaty rights and any interference with that entitlement is considered seriously. The tribunal has an absolute duty to clearly address each and every requirement of the Regulations before allowing EU citizens to be deported.
Read the whole article here: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/dutch-man-wins-deportation-appeal-after-judge-messes-up-legal-test/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dutch-man-wins-deportation-appeal-after-judge-messes-up-legal-test&utm_source=Free+Movement&utm_campaign=b57d575596-Daily+emails+everything&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-b57d575596-116334469&mc_cid=b57d575596&mc_eid=b72b4a153a
Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context. Subscribe to Vreemdelingenrecht.com blog by Email
Reacties