Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 is headed “General Provisions for Regulation and Control”.Subsections (5) and (6) as in force at all material times are as follows:
“(5)A person who is not a British citizen is liable to deportation from the United Kingdom if –
(a)the Secretary of State deems his deportation to be conducive to the public good; or
(b)another person to whose family he belongs is or has been ordered to be deported.
(6)Without prejudice to the operation of subsection (5) above, a person who is not a British citizen shall also be liable to deportation from the United Kingdom if, after he has attained the age of seventeen, he is convicted of an offence for which he is punishable with imprisonment and on his conviction is recommended for deportation by a court empowered by this Act to do so.”
Section 5(1) provides:
“(1)Where a person is under 3(5) or (6) above liable to deportation, then subject to the following provisions of this Act the Secretary of State may make a deportation order against him, that is to say an order requiring him to leave and prohibiting him from entering the United Kingdom; and a deportation order against a person shall invalidate any leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given him before the order is made or while it is in force.”
The rest of s5 relates to the procedure for deportation and contains provisions dealing specifically with those liable to deportation under s3(5)(b).Section 6 contains supplementary provisions relating to deportation under s3(6).Schedule 3 to the Act also contains provisions about deportation.We do not need to set them out.
"Where a deportation order is in force against any person, he may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State pending his removal or departure from the United Kingdom…"
The Immigration Rules
Part 13 of the Immigration Rules relates to deportation and administrative removal under s10 of the 1999 Act.We are primarily concerned with paragraphs 363 and 364.Paragraphs 363-363A summarise the circumstances in which a person becomes liable to deportation as follows:
“363.The circumstances in which a person is liable to deportation include:
(i)where the Secretary of State deems the person's deportation to be conducive to the public good;
(ii) where the person is the spouse or civil partner or child under 18 of a person ordered to be deported; and
(iii) where a court recommends deportation in the case of a person over the age of 17 who has been convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment.
363A.Prior to 2 October 2000, a person would have been liable to deportation in certain circumstances in which he is now liable to administrative removal. These circumstances are listed in paragraph 395B below. However, such a person remains liable to deportation, rather than administrative removal where:
(i) a decision to make a deportation order against him was taken before 2 October 2000; or
(ii) the person has made a valid application under the Immigration (Regularisation Period for Overstayers) Regulations 2000.”
1.Before 20 July 2006, paragraph 364 was as follows:
“364.Subject to paragraph 380 in considering whether deportation is the right course on the merits, the public interest will be balanced against any compassionate circumstances of the case.While each case will be considered in the light of the particular circumstances, the aim is an exercise of the power of deportation which is consistent and fair as between one person and another, although one case will rarely be identical with another in all material respects.…Before a decision to deport is reached the Secretary of State will take into account all relevant factors known to him including:
(i)age;
(ii)length of residence in the United Kingdom;
(iii)strength of connections with the United Kingdom;
(iv)personal history, including character, conduct and employment record;
(v)domestic circumstances;
(vi)previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted;
(vii)compassionate circumstances;
(viii)any representations received on the person’s behalf.”
From 20 July 2006 paragraph 364 was changed by HC 1337 so as to read as follows:
“364.Subject to paragraph 380, while each case will be considered on its merits, where a person is liable to deportation the presumption shall be that the public interest requires deportation. The Secretary of State will consider all relevant factors in considering whether the presumption is outweighed in any particular case, although it will only be in exceptional circumstances that the public interest in deportation will be outweighed in a case where it would not be contrary to the Human Rights Convention and the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees to deport. The aim is an exercise of the power of deportation which is consistent and fair as between one person and another, although one case will rarely be identical with another in all material respects. … .”
2.The omitted words in each version of paragraph 364 concern the transitional cases covered by paragraph 363A (above) and are not relevant for present purposes.The reference to paragraph 380 is a reference to those whose deportation would breach rights of theirs under either the Refugee Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights.
R (on the application of A) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (2007)
[2007] EWCA Civ 804
EO (Deportation appeals: scope and process) Turkey [2007] UKAIT 00062,EO (Deportation appeals - scope and process)
N v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 1548 (Admin),The High Court rules that the law on removals of asylum seekers to third countries is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
M ( Croatia) [2204] UKIAT 0024
Huang and Kashmiri v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 105; [2006] 1 QB 1 ,Whether the claimants' removal from the UK engaged Art 8 ECHR
Pawandeep Singh v Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi [2004] EWCA Civ 1075; [2005] 1 QB 608 De facto adoptive children enjoy family life in immigration context
M v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 146; [2003] WLR 1980 Extent of right to depart from CA judgment quashing recommendation for deportation
R (Samaroo) v SSHD [2001] EWCA Civ 1139; [2001] UKHRR 1150 Deportation of a drugs offender and the approach to proportionality of interference with the right to respect for family life
Januzi v SSHD [2006] UKHL 5; [2006] 2 AC 426 The application of the internal flight alternative to international protection
Strbac v SSHD [2005] Imm AR 504, CA. Whether removal of an ethnic Serb to Croatia would be contrary to Articles 3, 8 or 14 ECHR and whether delayed decision on asylum claim led to unfairness.
N (Kenya) v SSHD [2004] INLR 612, CA. 'Public good' deportation following conviction of serious criminal offence: role of deterrence where no propensity to re-offend.
R (Kariharan) v SSHD [2003] QB 933, CA. Immigrants have a right of appeal on human rights grounds from successive directions for removal from the UK
R v SSHD ex p Turgut [2001] 1 All ER 719, CA. Secretary of State entitled to decide that removal of failed Kurdish asylum-seekers to Turkey would not breach ECHR Article 3, and court could not determine issue of breach for itself.
Bensaid v UK [2001] 33 EHRR 205, European Court of Human Rights. Removal of mentally ill Algerian to Algeria would not breach ECHR Articles 3 and 8.
R v SSHD ex p Sivakumaran [1988] AC 958, HL. A person is a Geneva Convention refugee if objectively there is a reasonable degree of likelihood or a real risk of the persecution that the person fears.
R v SSHD ex p Bugdaycay [1987] 514, HL. Refugee status is determined by the Secretary of State and not by the courts. There is no in-country right of appeal from a refusal of leave to enter. Judicial review is available if the Secretary of State's decision is unlawful.
T.I. v United Kingdom7 March 2000 Application No. 43844/98
Assenov v Bulgaria28 October 1998 (90/1997/874/1086) in the European Court of Human Rights that the right to an adequate investigation of an asylum claim is an aspect of the substantive right under Article 3.
R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704
Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre [1997] AC 97Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that:
"In their Lordships' view the fact that the detention is self-induced by reason of the failure to apply for voluntary repatriation is a factor of fundamental importance in considering whether, in all the circumstances, the detention is reasonable."
R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] INLR 196 and R (Khadir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 1 AC 207.
An alarming number of injuries sustained by asylum deportees at the hand of private "escorts" contracted by the Home Office have come to light in the report entitled Outsourcing Abuses by Brinberg Peirce & Partners, Medical Justice and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC)...Shock revelations of treatment of failed asylum seekers in ...
woman and her family fighting deportation to Nigeria hope to return to Devon after being released from Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre. ...Family allowed deportation review
A 63 years old woman, was arrested and served deportation papers when she reported to Winchester police station, as she is required to do each week ....Winchester family's deportation fears
The Immigration (Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 will come into force on 31 August 2006.
The Regulations allow the Home Office to specify more than one country or territory of proposed removal in the notice of immigration decision. This will occur if an applicant is entitled to live in more than one country or where there is a dispute as to which country the person should be removed. This may occur where the application holds a passport of one country but is also entitled to live in another.
The UK Home Office has announced changes to the way in which it handles legal challenges in cases where people are about to be removed from the UK.
When a person has no leave to be in the UK, for example because they have entered illegally or because they have stayed longer than was permitted by the leave they were given, they may face removal from the UK. In such cases, a decision to remove them will be made. This decision can be challenged in limited circumstances, for example if the person asserts that to remove them from the UK would be a breach of their human rights.
In Immigration LawAdministrative Removal is the process of removing a person who does not qualify for admission to a particular Country or Territory. In certain circumstances it can also refer to expelling an individual who has, for example, entered a country illegally; overstayed their permission to stay or who is working without permission.
United Kingdom
Under United Kingdom Immigration Law a person refused entry is administratively removed under powers conferred under Schedule 2 of the 1971 Immigration Act as applied by the Immigration Rules. The decision to refuse is taken by an Immigration Officer with the authority of a Chief Immigration Officer or Immigration Inspector. There is no court order and the decision is not ordinarily subject to a right of appeal or further legal scrutiny. Similar Powers exist with regard to persons who have entered the United Kingdom who are subsequently deemed to be in breach of the law.
Not to be confused with Deportation
Because the decision to administratively remove a person is not a judicial decision it should not be confused with Deportation where a decision to deport a subject from the United Kingdom is personally endorsed by the Home Secretary: usually in response to a recommendation from a Court following a conviction or on public security grounds.
About 60 people are taking part in a hunger strike started by 13 Iraqi Kurds at an Oxford shire immigration centre. Detainees at Camps field House, in Kidlington, have said they are taking the action in protest at being forced to return to Iraq...Kurdish asylum seekers on hunger strike
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the possession of such a document is not sufficient grounds for conviction. ...Book download sparks deportation case
Measures in the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill will infringe human rights in the UK and should be amended or dropped, an all-party parliamentary ...Nine immigrants a week deported from region
Gambian asylum seekers for Humanitarian grounds. Giving them voluntary departure would make ... Protesters said that they were obstructing gates and doorways at various locations across the UK in a bid to stop officials conducting dawn raids.....Office Deport
KINSHASA, August 23 -- A High Court judge has ordered a halt to sending failed asylum seekers back to the Democratic Republic of Congo... Judge halts DR Congo deportations
A Filipino nurse and his family living in Carmarthenshire who were told they must leave the UK have won their campaign against deportation.Filipino family win fight to stay
