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

This is a sad case. Mr Card has been represented today by his partner, Wendy Ruth Knighton, an able advocate who has very sympathetically presented her submissions on his behalf.

This is a deportation case. Mr Card is a citizen of Jamaica. He began to live with Miss Knighton in September 2002, according to the determination of Senior Immigration Judge Malden which followed from his hearing in July of last year, and it is his determination which is the subject of this application for permission to appeal.

In April 2003, that is some six months later, their home was raided by the police and class A drugs were found. Initially Mr Card was held in custody but he was then bailed and he subsequently applied for leave to remain as the partner, that is the co-habitee, of Miss Knighton. He did not then come for trial on the drugs charges which resulted from the raid.

In May 2005 he was stopped by the police while driving. He gave a false address and said he was living in Kensington. He admitted not having a driving licence or insurance. A police check disclosed that the name he had given did not accord with the date of birth he had given, and that was put to him. There was a finger print check and that resulted in his being correctly identified.

The deportation order was made as a result of his sentence to three and a half years imprisonment for five offences of supplying class A drugs, namely cocaine and heroine, and two of possessing class A drugs with intent to supply. The deportation order was made on 20 October 2006. There was a hearing and then another hearing before Senior Immigration Judge Malden.

The ground of appeal is that the deportation of Mr Card would interfere with his rights under Article 8, and indeed those of Miss Knighton. The facts relating to the Article 8 claim are really not in dispute. They are set out in paragraph 15 of the determination, and they are facts which led me to say that this was a sad case. Miss Knighton is obviously, from her submissions before me today, an active, intelligent, sympathetic lady. She has a daughter who has a congenital hip dislocation and a degenerative bone disease, and it is primarily that which means that her and her daughter’s presence in this country really must continue; and the Immigration judge accepted that if the deportation took effect that would split the family, and it is the family which is the subject of Article 8. But he concluded that, although there was an interference with the Convention rights of Mr Card and Miss Knighton, nonetheless the deportation order must stand.

It is important when considering the role of the court in this situation to point out that the court is not a Court of Appeal on fact. The court does not interfere with factual findings of an immigration judge unless they are wholly unfounded; and, so far as Article 8 is concerned, in the first place it is for the immigration judge to weigh up the pros and cons in order to decide whether deportation is proportionate or not. It is only if the result of the decision is one which the court could not uphold as being rational that the court can or should interfere.

What is relied upon in this case is the fact that Mr Card is essentially a reformed character. He has not offended since he left prison about a year ago, and indeed while in prison would appear to have been an excellent prisoner. He was a listener, who would have been involved if there were a vulnerable prisoner who was at risk of self harm or suicide. He has, therefore, it would seem, changed; and there is no risk to the public if he remains.

However, it is not only continuing risk to the public which is the subject of the interest protected by deportation. The object of deportation is, to a significant extent, deterrence; it is, effectively, that someone who commits a serious offence in this country loses his right to be here unless the circumstances are highly unusual. The consequences of deportation in this case are unfortunate in the extreme, but, having looked at the determination of the judge, who took into account all the facts that were being put forward on behalf of Mr Card, I am ultimately, like Dyson LJ, and despite everything that Miss Knighton has so cogently put, unable to see that the decision is one that the Senior Immigration Judge was not entitled to reach.

In all these cases priority is given to the view of the Home Secretary as to the need for deterrence and for deportation. Whether I would have reached the same decision as the Immigration judge is not for me to say. I have a lot of sympathy with Miss Knighton. However, I do not feel that this is a decision that I can properly interfere with and therefore, unfortunately, I have to refuse permission.