Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 62 (02 February 2012)

Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 62 (02 February 2012)

The Upper Tribunal erred in its approach to proportionality by not properly recognising the statutory presumption in favour of deportation of foreign criminals and by misplacing the weight to be given to the seriousness of the offence and the absence of risk of reoffending. The case must be remitted for redetermination applying the correct legal principles.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 62
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Rocky Gurung; Defendant / Appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Upper Tribunal (immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for redetermination
Legal Topics
Automatic Deportation, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Public Interest in Deportation, Borders Act 2007, Family Life, Manslaughter, Tribunal Procedure
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Automatic Deportation Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Public Interest in Deportation Borders Act 2007 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rocky Gurung

Claimant / Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Upper Tribunal (immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deportation of Rocky Gurung is a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Proper approach to proportionality under the Borders Act 2007 in deportation of foreign criminals
  3. 3 Weight to be given to public interest in deportation under statutory regime

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal erred in its approach to proportionality by not properly recognising the statutory presumption in favour of deportation of foreign criminals and by misplacing the weight to be given to the seriousness of the offence and the absence of risk of reoffending. The case must be remitted for redetermination applying the correct legal principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for redetermination

Orders

  • The Home Secretary's appeal is allowed to the extent of remitting the case to the Upper Tribunal for redetermination on the merits.