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.
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity because the case involves the consideration of welfare issues in relation to a number of children. I make clear that the order is not made to protect the appellant's reputation following his convictions for criminal offences. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant or his family members. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
             For a series of different reasons, the deportation proceedings in this case have been ongoing for several years. It is not necessary to set out the long procedural history in detail. It is known to the parties. A relatively brief summary of the background should suffice.
             On 10 May 2016 the appellant was convicted of possession with intent to supply Class A and B drugs for which he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. On 05 December 2016 the respondent issued a notice of decision to make an automatic deportation order (Stage 1) in accordance with section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007 ('UKBA 2007'). The appellant made submissions to the respondent as to why he should not be deported.
              On 06 November 2023 the appellant was convicted of possession with intent to supply Class A drugs. This time he was sentenced to a period of 51 months' imprisonment (4 years 3 months). The appeal paused again while the appellant made further representations and the respondent prepared a supplementary decision letter dated 02 May 2024.
         The appeal proceeds on the basis that there is no evidence to show that the appellant has ever had lawful leave to remain or any other right of residence in the UK. Even if he had not been convicted of criminal offences, the appellant would be liable to removal from the UK. Perhaps because there is no evidence of lawful residence or of any significant ties to the UK beyond the fact of his family life here, the appellant did not seek to rely on any arguments relating to his private life.
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.