Zane Malik Appears for the Home Secretary

 The Court of Appeal allows the Home Secretary’s appeal and quashes the decisions of the Upper Tribunal and the First Tier Tribunal allowing a foreign criminal’s appeal on Articles 3 and 8 grounds. The Senior President of the Tribunals (with whom Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Henderson agree), importantly, says that:

1. A person’s criminal conduct is a relevant consideration in assessing the internal relocation aspect of an Article 3 claim: [39]. 
2. The phrase “most of his life”, in Rule 399A(a) and section 117C(4)(a) of the 2002 Act, has to be “more than half”: [53].
3. The phrase “lawfully resident”, in Rule 399A(a) and section 117C(4)(a) of the 2002 Act, contemplates residence that is “permitted by law”: [56].
4. Financial dependency and criminal convictions may indicate a lack of integration for the purpose of “socially and culturally integrated in the UK” stipulation in Rule 399A(b) and section 117C(4)(b) of the 2002 Act: [63]. 
5. A person’s criminal offending is to be balanced against the statutory considerations as opposed to any traumatic personal history: [62].
Zane Malik appeared for the Home Secretary.

SC (Jamaica) v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2112: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/2112.html