Kardi, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
- LORD JUSTICE VOS
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a Tunisian national convicted of terrorism in France who sought to challenge the UK's decision to impose restrictive conditions on his discretionary leave to remain. His appeal was based on procedural delays and claimed violations of his Article 8 ECHR rights. The court upheld the restrictions, finding them proportionate and lawful, given the public interest aims and the facts of his case.
Lord Justice Richards :
The appellant is a national of Tunisia, now 42 years old, with a conviction in France in 1995 for an offence of terrorism. He has been in the United Kingdom since 2000. His claim to asylum in this country was rejected on the ground that he was excluded by Article 1F of the Refugee Convention from the protection of that Convention. It was found, however, that he would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if removed to Tunisia. In November 2008 he was therefore granted 6 months’ discretionary leave to remain. In May 2009, before the expiry of that 6 month period, he applied for further leave to remain. There was a long delay in reaching a decision on the application. Eventually, however, in March 2012, he was granted six months’ discretionary leave to remain subject to restrictions as to employment, residence, reporting and study. That decision was taken in accordance with a policy introduced by the Secretary of State on 2 September 2011 concerning the grant of restricted discretionary leave in Article 1F cases.
In May 2012 the appellant brought a claim for judicial review of the March 2012 decision. The claim was heard by His Honour Judge Purle QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, and was dismissed by him in a judgment given on 23 August 2013. Permission to appeal to this court was granted by the judge himself.
There are broadly two grounds of appeal: (1) that the delay in reaching a decision on the May 2009 application for further leave to remain rendered the March 2012 decision unlawful, and (2) that the restrictions imposed by the March 2012 decision are contrary to the appellant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR. In granting permission to appeal the judge observed inter alia that the case raised important points on a relatively new policy introduced by the Secretary of State affecting those guilty of serious crime. It should be noted, however, that the appeal involves no challenge to the validity of the policy on restricted discretionary leave, but only to the way it was applied in the particular circumstances of the appellant’s case. The policy itself admits of considerable flexibility in its application.
Before considering the grounds of appeal I need to give a fuller account of the relevant facts.
The facts
In 1994 the appellant was arrested in France in possession of weapons and ammunition intended to be transported to Tunisia for use in an armed coup against the government. This resulted in his convictio