Ahmati, R. v

An appeal against a recommendation for deportation may be allowed where a subsequent decision by the Home Office not to act on the recommendation has overtaken it, so that no useful purpose is served by retaining it. That later administrative development does not show that the sentencing judge erred. The correctness of the recommendation remains assessed by reference to the authorities and circumstances when it was made.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Norwich Magistrates’ Court to obtaining leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by deception and obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception. He was committed for sentence and received a total of nine months’ imprisonment in the Crown Court at Norwich, together with a recommendation for deportation.

He appealed, with leave, against the recommendation only. During the appeal, the Home Office informed him that it proposed to take no further action on the recommendation and granted him a residence permit. The central issue was whether the recommendation should nevertheless remain in force.

1. Appeal allowed. The court allowed the appeal on one ground only. After the sentencing hearing, the Home Office had decided not to act upon the recommendation for deportation and had granted the appellant a residence permit. Those developments had overtaken the recommendation.
2. The court held that there was therefore no point in maintaining the recommendation. The appeal succeeded because of the later action taken by the Home Office, rather than because of any error in the sentencing process.
3. The sentencing judge had been correct, on the authorities as they stood at the time, to make the recommendation. The court observed that the recent authorities of R v Bennabas and R v Carmona confirmed that conclusion.
4. The court directed that the Home Office should show cause why it should not pay the costs of all parties to the appeal. It made no final costs order at that stage and required any Home Office evidence to come from a person with responsibility for the matter.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — By [2006] EWCA Crim 818, allowed the appeal against the recommendation for deportation because subsequent Home Office action had overtaken it.
• Crown Court at Norwich — On 22 July 2005, Judge Darroch imposed a total sentence of nine months’ imprisonment and recommended deportation.
• Norwich Magistrates’ Court — On 26 April 2005, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.