OA064332015

The Judge had set out the background to the Appellant's appeal whereby an Immigration Officer at Calais had refused the Appellant entry to the United Kingdom because it was said that the Appellant's exclusion was justified on grounds of public policy because of his criminal convictions which had included robbery.

The Judge concluded that the Appellant's personal conduct did represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. However the Judge felt able to allow the appeal because he concluded that the last offence was in 2007 and the Respondent had not provided any evidence to suggest that following the Appellant's release from prison in 2007 that he had committed any further offences.

The Respondent's grounds of appeal contended that there was a misdirection of law arising out of a mistake of fact because, amongst other things, the Appellant was extradited to Poland in 2013 (the explanatory statement says 2014) and was convicted following having absconded and breached his bail conditions for which he served a further sentence of 6 months imprisonment.

I can see that because the Judge was dealing with the appeal on the papers therefore the clarification now being provided was probably not as clear at the time of the hearing before him. Therefore albeit with initial reluctance, I conclude that there is a material error of law in the Judge's decision.

I conclude that the Appellant does have a propensity to re-offend because the Respondent has proved that is so.