30 Nov 2023
Given the accepted facts—notably 25 years' residence and expert evidence of likely serious mental health effects for the applicant and his daughter—the IPT's conclusion that no exceptional humanitarian circumstances arose was untenable; the appeal is allowed, the IPT decision is quashed and the matter is remitted to the IPT for a full rehearing before a different member.
11 Oct 2023
Leave to appeal under s 245 is granted because it is sufficiently seriously arguable that the Tribunal's conclusion that no exceptional humanitarian circumstances existed was untenable on the evidence, given the accepted serious mental health issues of the applicant and his daughter and the risk of significant deterioration including self-harm; leave to commence judicial review under s 249 is declined because the issues are suitable for appeal and no discrete legality or process error is shown.
28 Sept 2023
The Facts Appeal Decision was a separate Tribunal decision that triggered the 28‑day period under s245(2) and the applicant's leave application did not encompass it so was out of time; s249(1) does not preclude judicial review where the Tribunal cannot provide effective relief for the challenge (a jurisdictional assessment is required), and on that basis the proper pathway in this case is s247 such that the applicant must proceed under s247 and seek any extension of time for judicial review.
11 Sept 2023
Leave to appeal was declined because the High Court concluded the Tribunal did not apply an impermissible presumption; it conducted a case-specific weighing of the applicant's offending and the identified exceptional humanitarian circumstances and its conclusion that deportation was not unjust or unduly harsh was not plainly wrong, therefore no question of law of general or public importance or other reason for High Court determination under s 245 was established.
6 Sept 2023
Leave to judicially review was declined because the applicant's grounds did not identify any unlawful, unfair or unreasonable exercise of statutory power nor raise questions of law of sufficient general or public importance to warrant High Court intervention; the Tribunal lawfully found exceptional humanitarian circumstances but, weighing the seriousness of offending, correctly concluded deportation was not unjust or unduly harsh for the applicant.
16 Aug 2023
The Court granted leave to adduce the expert evidence as credible and cogent (though not fresh), granted leave to appeal to the High Court on the question whether the Tribunal erred in its risk assessment and thereby excluded material information, and declined leave to commence judicial review because the matters sought to be raised are appropriately addressed on appeal; the question of whether a single-stage or two-stage assessment applies is a question of law of general importance that ought to go to the High Court.
15 Aug 2023
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a seriously arguable error of law: the Tribunal's factual findings and the weight it gave to medical and family evidence about dementia progression, care options in China, and the daughter's intentions were open on the evidence and did not amount to errors of law sufficient to justify leave under s245.
25 Jul 2023
An eight‑year starting point for manslaughter was appropriate given the aggravating features (weapon use, returning to fetch the knife, fatal injury); after reductions totalling approximately 37% for early plea (near 25%), remorse, lack of prior convictions and other personal factors, the appropriate sentence is five years' imprisonment.
9 Jun 2023
Given the offending was at the lower end of moderate seriousness but expert immigration evidence established that conviction would very likely lead to deportation and materially worsen an already existing liability, the immigration consequence of conviction was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending; accordingly the conviction was quashed and the appellant discharged without conviction under s106 Sentencing Act 2002.
28 Apr 2023
The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidential proof of financial hardship (impecuniosity) by way of a sworn affidavit of means; under r 53F(g) and established High Court authority this is required and absent exceptional circumstances the Court will not waive or reduce costs, therefore the application is declined.