RP000892015

For the Respondent: Ms K McCarthy, Counsel instructed by Scott Moncrieff solicitors

No anonymity order was made by the First-tier Tribunal. I find that no particular issues arise on the facts of this case that give rise to the need for a direction. For this reason no anonymity direction is made.

As I have already noted, by the Decision, Judge Clarke allowed the appeal on the basis that deportation would breach the Appellant's human rights, specifically in relation to Article 8 ECHR. In so doing, she accepted that the Respondent was wrong to have applied the Immigration Rules relating to deportation and Article 8. She found as a result that the Respondent's decision was "not in accordance with the law". She nonetheless went on to consider whether the decision to deport was proportionate. She found that it was not.

Permission to appeal the Decision was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman on 16 June 2016 on the basis that it was arguable that, having found that the Respondent's decision was not in accordance with the law, the Judge should not have gone on to consider proportionality. He did not exclude though the Respondent's second ground.

The Respondent's second ground concerns the way in which the Judge dealt with the proportionality assessment. It is submitted that the Judge has given inadequate consideration to the public interest in deporting the Appellant as someone with the criminal convictions which he has amassed. In fact, Ms McCarthy very fairly accepted in response to a question from me that it is difficult to see where in the Decision the Judge has given any consideration or weight to that public interest.