IA004162013

For the Appellant: Miss A. Holmes & Miss A. Everettt of the Specialist Appeals Team

Miss Holmes did not think that such an interpretation of section 141 could be right, and Mr Lewis could not cite any authority to back up his interpretation. There was also the problem that section 140 of LASPO inserted a new section 56A into the UK Borders Act 2007, headed � no rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes �, and one of these purposes is a decision on leave to remain under the Rules. It seemed possible that 140 cancelled out any effect which section 141 might have on the present appeal.

The best course seemed to be to adjourn the appeal so that Mr Lewis could consider whether he should continue to advance the contention that his client was eligible for indefinite leave under the Rules. If he was not, he was entitled in any event to a decision on his Article 8 claim, which was left undetermined by the First-tier Tribunal.

Where does that leave Mr Bobba? Section 141 of LASPO makes transitional and consequential provisions, and Mr Lewis had already drawn attention to subsections (1) and (2), which give retrospective effect to section 139. But the fact that Mr Bobba�s conviction was to be regarded as spent before he made his application for indefinite leave would not avail him if section 140 prevented him from being regarded as rehabilitated.

Fortunately for Mr Bobba, subsection (9) of section 141 comes to his rescue. This says that section 140 �does not affect -