MK (Democratic Republic of Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a deportation case, an Article 8 assessment is legally adequate where the tribunal considers the claimant’s length of residence, personal circumstances, intellectual and linguistic abilities, connections with the country of return, and the effect of removal on private life, together with the seriousness of the offending. A complaint that Article 8 was insufficiently analysed does not establish an arguable error of law where those matters were examined in detail. Article 8 provides relatively weak protection in deportation cases involving serious offences.

The appellant, a Congolese national who arrived in the United Kingdom aged nine, sought permission to appeal against decisions of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal concerning a deportation order. The first decision, promulgated on 2 March 2007, rejected his appeal after considering his criminal record, personal history and the consequences of return. A second decision, promulgated on 23 November 2007, effectively reviewed the first decision. The central issue was whether the tribunal had arguably erred in law by failing adequately to analyse and take into account the appellant’s Article 8 rights.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The Court of Appeal found no arguable defect of law in either tribunal adjudication.
2. The appellant was aged 25 and had spent a substantial part of his life in the United Kingdom. His deportation followed a series of serious offences. The Court treated the seriousness of the offending as important because Article 8 is a relatively weak Convention right in deportation cases, particularly where the offences are serious.
3. The first tribunal had undertaken a detailed review of the appellant’s history, criminal record and the effect of return to the Democratic Republic of Congo. It considered the length of his residence, his intellectual and linguistic abilities, his continuing connections with people in the Congo, and the general effect of return on his personal life.
4. The Court rejected the criticism that the appellant’s Article 8 rights had not been sufficiently analysed or taken into account. The matters relevant to the Article 8 assessment had been addressed, and no arguable error of law was disclosed. The second tribunal had reached the same view.
5. Lord Justice Wall agreed that there was no error in either adjudication. The operative order was: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 13 May 2008, refused permission to appeal, reported at [2008] EWCA Civ 627.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — The first decision, promulgated on 2 March 2007, rejected the appeal against the deportation order. A second decision, promulgated on 23 November 2007, effectively reviewed the first decision.