Skip to main content

Case details

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

Case ID: 2020/0138

Case summary

Issue

The appeal raises the following issues:

A. Does a decision under paragraph 339O of the Immigration Rules as to whether a person can reasonably be expected to stay in part of their country of origin import a value judgment including consideration of that person’s criminal conduct in the UK?

B. If the answer to A is No, did FTT Judge Kamara err in law in holding that A could not reasonably be expected to stay in a different part of Jamaica?

C. Did FTT Judge Kamara err in law in her assessment of section s117C(4)(b)-(c) of the NIAA 2002 and Para. 399A(b)-(c) of the Immigration Rules in holding that A is socially and culturally integrated in the UK and there would be very significant obstacles to his integration in Jamaica.

D. Did FTT Judge Kamara err in law in embarking on a freestanding assessment of Article 8, applying the wrong test and failing to give sufficient weight to the public interest in A’s deportation.

Facts

SC is a Jamaican national, now aged 29. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 26 December 2001, at the age of 10, to join his mother who had left Jamaica in 1999. In December 2002, SC’s mother applied for asylum on the basis of her sexuality. Following a successful appeal, SC and his mother were granted indefinite leave to remain as refugees on 9 October 2003. Between 2007 and 2012, SC was convicted for a number of criminal offences, including robbery, common assault, possession of a bladed article, offences relating to the police, courts or prisons and driving offences. His most recent conviction was in June 2012, for which he was sentenced to a period of two years’ detention in a young offenders’ institution.
On 11 September 2012, the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("SSHD") notified SC of his liability to deportation as a foreign criminal and, on 3 October 2012, of the SSHD’s intention to cease his refugee status. On 22 January 2013, after receiving written representations, the SSHD decided to no longer recognise SC as a refugee and, on 20 March 2013, the SSHD informed SC of her decision to make an order for his deportation under section 32(5) of the U.K Borders Act 2007 Act. SC lodged an appeal against the latter decision with the First-tier Tribunal, appealing on asylum and human rights grounds, relying on articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). On 6 March 2015, the First-tier Tribunal allowed SC’s appeal and, on 21 October 2015, following an appeal by the SSHD, this decision was upheld by the Upper Tribunal. However, on 20 December 2017, the Court of Appeal set aside the decisions of both Tribunals, remitting SC’s appeal from the SSHD’s decision to be heard afresh by the First-tier Tribunal. SC now appeals against the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court.

Judgment appealed

[2017] EWCA Civ 2112

Parties

Appellant(s)

SC

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Appeal

Justices

Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens

Hearing start date

19 October 2021

Hearing finish date

19 October 2021

Watch hearing
19 Oct 2021 Morning session Afternoon session
 

Reporting restrictions

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

Case ID: UKSC 2020/0138

THE COURT ORDERED that no one shall publish or reveal the name or address of the Appellant who is the subject of these proceedings or publish or reveal any information which would be likely to lead to the identification of the Appellant or of any member of his family in connection with these proceedings.

 
 

Future Judgment Update

Please note that appeal in the matter of Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) v SC (Jamaica) (Appellant) has been heard by the Supreme Court and is currently awaiting judgment.

As soon as the judgment hand-down date is confirmed, it will be published on the Future judgments page of this website. As a very broad indication, judgments tend to follow between three to nine months after the conclusion of the appeal hearing, although in some cases it may be earlier than that. Information about judgment hand-downs is usually announced one week in advance. We are unable to give any indication of the likely hand-down date for judgments not listed on the Future judgments page.