Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
             These are the approved record of the decision and reasons which were given orally at the end of the hearing on 21 st June 2022.
             In order to avoid confusion, we refer to the appellant as the Secretary of State and the respondent as the Claimant for the remainder of these reasons.
             This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Louveaux (the 'FtT'), promulgated on 28 th February 2022, by which he allowed the Claimant's human rights appeal on the basis that it would be in breach of the Claimant's right to respect for his family life with his British citizen children, pursuant to article 8 ECHR.
             The FtT reminded himself of the authorities of Devaseelan (second appeals, ECHR, extra-territorial effect) [2002] UKIAT 000702, and Wilson (NIAA Part 5A; deportation decisions) [2020] UKUT 350 (IAC) . Wilson confirms that "potential harm" is not enough. The harm may be to society in general, not limited to individual harm. See: R (Mahmood) v UTIAC & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 717 at §19.
             The Secretary of State appealed against the FtT's decision on the basis that the FtT had misdirected himself and/or failed to explain why the Claimant's offences had not caused serious harm. It was trite law that "serious harm" could extend to psychological or economic harm, including the supply of drugs.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.