AM (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an Article 8 assessment concerning deportation, the decision-maker must weigh the rights and interests of the whole family, including the partner and children, rather than only those of the person concerned. The assessment must address the effect of the decision on family members. The risk of reoffending is a relevant consideration under Article 8 and the Rules. Where the first-instance tribunal has failed to undertake these assessments, the appellate court should remit the matter instead of conducting the weighing exercise itself.

The appellant, a Jamaican national who came to the United Kingdom at the age of 13, had serious convictions and a partner and three children. He appealed from a decision of Immigration Judge Metzer dated 16 August 2007, recorded under AIT No IA/04012/2007. The judge considered the appellant’s Article 8 rights but did not assess the rights and interests of the partner and children or the risk of reoffending. The Court of Appeal considered whether those omissions were material and whether it should conduct the balancing exercise itself.

1. Appeal allowed and matter remitted. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for further determination by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
2. The risk of reoffending was a consideration which had to be addressed in the weighing exercise under Article 8 and the Rules. The evidence was inadequate. Neither party had provided evidence about the appellant’s conduct in prison, parole applications or their outcome. The available medical records were incomplete.
3. The House of Lords decision in Beoku-Betts v SSHD [2008] UKHL 39 established that Article 8 considerations in deportation and asylum cases must include the Article 8 rights of the whole family, not merely those of the individual concerned. The Immigration Judge had considered the appellant’s rights but had not asked what effect the decision would have on his partner and children, particularly the children’s position without their father.
4. The fact that the judge had described the family as loving and had recorded the evidence did not show that he had weighed its effect on the other family members. It was for the tribunal, not the Court of Appeal, to perform the required assessment. The case therefore required reconsideration, including any further evidence about the appellant’s prison history and the effect on his family.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for further determination by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
• Asylum & Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge Metzer made the decision under appeal on 16 August 2007.