• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

humanrights.scot

Human Rights and Rule of Law, Faculty of Advocates’ Committee

  • Home
  • About
  • Awards
    • Scottish Bar International Human Rights Award 2018
      • Premio Internacional de Derechos Humanos del Colegio de Abogados de Escocia
      • Le prix international de droits humains du Barreau d’Écosse
  • News
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Organisations
  • Contact
  • Nav Social Menu

    • E-mail
    • RSS
    • Twitter

Test for automatic deportation and Article 8

2nd October 2017

Ndidi v The United Kingdom, No. 41215/14, ECHR, 14th September 2017

The applicant was a Nigerian national and entered the United Kingdom in 1989 before being granted indefinite leave to remain in 2003.The applicant developed a record of criminal offences and was given fair warning of deportation. In 2011, after release from an institution for young offenders, he was served with a decision for automatic deportation. After a series of appeals in the UK the applicant raised two complaints with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The first complaint was that the Immigration Rules require ‘exceptional circumstances’ before deportation is considered a violation of Article 8. This is a higher standard than that of ‘proportionality’ found in Strasbourg jurisprudence. The second complaint was that the applicant’s deportation is a disproportionate action that will violate his Article 8 right to private and family life. The court rejected the applicant’s first complaint as it was found he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. With regards to the second complaint the court found that deportation would interfere with the applicant’s Article 8 right. However, the Court in this case decided that the applicant’s deportation would not be in breach of Article 8 as it was recognised that throughout all domestic proceedings the applicant’s Article 8 right had been carefully balanced against the public interest. The court found no need to reconsider the decision reached in domestic proceedings where they had utilised the test of proportionality required by the convention.  As such, the court decided that there had been no violation of the applicant’s Article 8 right.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Filed Under: Blog

Footer

Contact us

0131 226 5071
human-rights@advocates.org.uk
@RolHR

The Faculty of Advocates
Parliament Square
Edinburgh
City of Edinburgh
EH1 1RF
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Sign-up for updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Legal notices
  • Cookies
  • Accessibility
  • Sitemap

Copyright © 2021 The Faculty of Advocates

Website built by graphics.coop Powered by WordPress