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.
       The appellant is a citizen of Cape Verde (but see also below) born on 12 August 1989. He arrived in the United Kingdom 1998 at the age of nine years. He was issued with a residence card in line with his mother as a family member of an EEA national and was issued with a permanent residence card in line with his mother on 15 September 2017, valid until 15 September 2027. He applied for leave under the EU Settlement Scheme on 26 January 2019 and on 5 February 2019 he was granted settled status - indefinite leave to remain in the UK under the EUSS.
       In its recent judgment of Secretary of State for the Home Department v William George [2024] EWCA Civ 1192 the Court of Appeal has restated the nature of the 'imperative' test in EU deportations. At [89], Underhill LJ stated:
The distinction between the two levels of protection is fundamental to the issue in this appeal. Two key points emerge from para. 32 of the judgment of Carnwath LJ in LG (Italy), which was concerned with the provisions in regulation 21 of the 2006 Regulations (which are, save in one respect noted at the end of para. 91 below, substantially identical to the provisions of the 2016 Regulations with which we are concerned):
(1) The words "imperative grounds of public security" impose a criterion which is "both more stringent and narrower in scope than the criterion of "serious grounds of public policy and public security" (see para. 32 (1)). To spell it out, the criterion is more stringent because the grounds must be "imperative", which "connotes a very high threshold" (see para. 32 (3)); and it is narrower because the grounds must relate only to "public security", whereas under regulation 27(3) they may relate also to "public policy".
(2) The difference between the two levels of protection is not merely one of degree but qualitative: "in other words, [regulation 27 (4)] requires, not simply a Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. SSHD v George serious matter of public policy, but an actual risk to public security [my italics], so compelling that it justifies the exceptional course of removing someone who ... has become integrated by many years residence in the host state" (para. 32 (5)).
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.