[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> MK (Democratic Republic of Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 627 (13 May 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/627.html Cite as: [2008] EWCA Civ 627

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No: IA/13295/2006]

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		13th May 2008

Lord Justice Burnton:

1. The applicant for permission to appeal is a Congolese national, a young man now aged 25 who arrived in this country aged nine and therefore has spent a large part of his life in this country.
2. The case is a deportation case. The applicant has been convicted of a series of serious offences set out in the first of the tribunal decisions, promulgated on 2 March 2007, to which this application refers. There was a second tribunal decision on 23 November 2007 which effectively reviewed the first decision.
3. The first decision rejected the appeal against the deportation order. It is a detailed review of the history of the applicant, of his criminal record and of the effect of his return to the Congo on him personally. It is criticised on the basis that the Article 8 rights of the claimant were not sufficiently analysed and taken into account. Article 8 is a notoriously weak Convention right, particularly in a deportation case and more particularly in circumstances in which the offences which give rise to the deportation order are as serious as those of the applicant.
4. It was evident from the history before the immigration judges on that occasion how long the applicant had been in this country. There was a detailed review of the effect of deportation on him which considered both his intellectual abilities and his linguistic abilities and such evidence there was as to his ongoing connections with people in the Congo and generally the effect that return would have on his personal life, which is, of course, the subject of Article 8.
5. Having reviewed that decision I can find no arguable defect of law in it and more specifically in its consideration of the position under Article 8. That accords with the view taken by the second tribunal. In my judgment therefore I would refuse permission.

Lord Justice Wall:

6. I agree. The brevity of Mr Harris's submissions does not mean that they were any the less cogent, but, like my Lord, I can detect no error in either adjudication and I too would refuse permission to appeal.

Order: Application refused