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

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the First‑tier Tribunal judge's decision that the automatic deportation order against SC was unlawful. The Court held that SC faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in urban parts of Jamaica contrary to Article 3 ECHR and that internal relocation to rural parts of Jamaica could not reasonably be expected of him. The judge's holistic assessment under the reasonableness test for internal relocation (as applied in the asylum context and reflected in paragraph 339O of the Immigration Rules) was lawful: the F‑tT properly considered SC's personal circumstances, including his severe post‑traumatic stress disorder and lack of ties in Jamaica, and did not err in declining to make a value judgment about what was "due" to him as a criminal.

The Court also held that the F‑tT correctly applied the statutory scheme in Part 5A of the NIAA 2002 and the Immigration Rules (paragraphs 398–399A) when considering Article 8 ECHR. The judge properly found that SC met the criteria in paragraph 399A (lawful residence for most of his life, social and cultural integration in the UK, and very significant obstacles to integration in Jamaica) and that the public interest in deportation did not outweigh his Article 8 rights.

This appeal concerned the lawfulness of an "automatic" deportation order made under the UK Borders Act 2007 in respect of SC, a Jamaican national and foreign criminal. SC had been recognised as refugee as a child (through his mother) but later lost that status. He committed a range of offences in the United Kingdom and was sentenced to a period of imprisonment which engaged the automatic deportation regime.

The F‑tT (Judge Kamara) allowed SC's appeal against the deportation order on Article 3 grounds, finding a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in urban parts of Jamaica and that internal relocation to rural areas would be unreasonable for SC, taking into account his personal circumstances including severe PTSD, lack of ties in Jamaica and difficulties in sustaining himself in rural areas. The F‑tT also found that paragraph 399A of the Immigration Rules (mirrored by section 117C(4) NIAA 2002) applied so that deportation would be contrary to Article 8 ECHR.

The SSHD appealed. The Upper Tribunal and then the Court of Appeal questioned aspects of the F‑tT's reasoning. The Court of Appeal held that the F‑tT had erred by failing to consider SC's criminality as a potential factor in the reasonableness assessment for internal relocation and that there was insufficient factual material to support the F‑tT's holistic assessment; it remitted the case for rehearing.

Issues before the Supreme Court included (i) whether an appellant's criminality is a proper factor in assessing the reasonableness of internal relocation under Article 3, (ii) whether the F‑tT erred in holding internal relocation unreasonable on the facts, (iii) whether the F‑tT erred in applying section 117C(4)(b)-(c) of the NIAA 2002 and paragraph 399A(b)-(c) of the Immigration Rules as to social and cultural integration and obstacles to integration, and (iv) whether the F‑tT embarked on a freestanding Article 8 assessment outside the statutory scheme.

The Court ruled: (i) criminality is not relevant as a separate value judgment of what is "due" to a criminal when deciding reasonableness of internal relocation; only insofar as criminality bears on the individual's personal circumstances and survival capacities may it be considered; (ii) the F‑tT did not err in finding internal relocation to rural Jamaica unreasonable on the facts, given uncontested evidence of severe trauma, lack of contacts or recent residence in Jamaica and absence of state protection; (iii) the F‑tT correctly found SC socially and culturally integrated in the UK and that there would be very significant obstacles to integration in Jamaica; and (iv) the F‑tT did not err in structure or weight when considering Article 8 and followed the statutory scheme and rules. The result was that the deportation decision was unlawful under section 6 HRA 1998 as incompatible with Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.

Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court reinstated the First‑tier Tribunal's decision: deportation would breach Article 3 because internal relocation to rural Jamaica could not reasonably be expected, and deportation would also be incompatible with Article 8 because SC met paragraph 399A of the Immigration Rules / section 117C(4) NIAA 2002. The F‑tT's holistic assessment was lawful; criminality cannot be treated as a separate value judgment of what is "due" to a criminal but may be considered only to the extent it bears on personal circumstances and survival capacities.

First‑tier Tribunal allowed SC's appeal (6 March 2015). The Secretary of State's appeal to the Upper Tribunal was dismissed (Upper Tribunal Judge Canavan, 21 October 2015). The Court of Appeal set aside the F‑tT and UT decisions and remitted for rehearing ([2017] EWCA Civ 2112; [2018] 1 WLR 4004). Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted (18 May 2021). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the F‑tT decision ([2022] UKSC 15).