CA-2024-001283 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1203

The SSHD refused the application, providing her reasons in a decision letter dated 1 April 2021.

The SSHD noted that the respondent lived on her own in South Africa, and that it was said that there were no other members of her family who were alive, save for her son and his family. The SSHD noted that the respondent was said to be an upright citizen who, apart from her conviction in 2002, had led an honourable life. Moreover, that

“Your son has submitted that his children have a very strong bond with you and they persistently ask when granny would visit. Your son has submitted that they have always been a tight-knit family and the deportation order is causing much pain and sorrow for everyone”.

The SSHD stated that she had considered the application in accordance with the Immigration Rules, which reflected Parliament’s view of what the public interest requires for the purposes of Article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), as set out at sections 117A – 117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as inserted by the Immigration Act 2014) (“the 2002 Act”).

The SSHD stated that in accordance with section 117C of the 2002 Act, as neither the private life exception nor the family life exception applied, she had considered whether there were very compelling circumstances which would make a decision not to revoke the deportation order a breach of Article 8. The SSHD determined that, having regard to the information with which she had been provided on behalf of the respondent, the circumstances were not sufficiently compelling to override the public interest in the maintenance of effective immigration controls, including the need to prevent serious crime, to deter others and to reflect public concern.

Following the initial decision, further evidence and submissions were provided to the SSHD on behalf of the respondent. These were considered by the SSHD, who again refused the application, providing her reasons in a supplementary decision letter dated 8 December 2021.

The SSHD noted it was asserted that whilst her son and his family lived in South Africa, the respondent had taken an active role in the upbringing of her grandchildren. Courtnall and his family had been forced to leave South Africa owing to the grandchildren’s complex educational needs. Moreover, the respondent’s own medical and care needs were unable to be properly met in South Africa.

The medical evidence provided to the SSHD included various psychiatric reports from Dr D’Agnone, dated 19 May 2021, which stated that the respondent had Autism Spectrum Disorder, Anxiety Disorder and Depression. Moreover, whilst Courtnall had Bipolar Affective Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Overeating associated with other psychological disturbances and Sleep Disorder, his wife had fibromyalgia and Major Depressive Disorder.

Dr D’Agnone noted that both of the grandchildren had been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Conditions, and that,

“Having cohabited with the children since they were born, [the respondent] practically raised [them]. She has been playing a crucial role in their upbringing, building a very strong bond over many years…Both [children] are autistic, meaning that they have very limited capacity to relate to and to form emotional bonds with individuals…Due to their strong bond with [the respondent], breaking off the physical contact with her may be a traumatic experience for the children, negatively affecting their cognitive and emotional development, as well as their capacity to learn to form friendships”.”

An Education, Health and Care Plan, dated 8 February 2021, was provided, which the SSHD noted,

“...gives detailed assessment of [A’s] progress and development since he has joined the specialist school and how he has settled in his new environment which is helping him to become an independent and confident person. [A] is staying at the school premises and going home at weekends. He has been able to live without his parents, his primary carers and there is no indication in the EHCP that this separation from his parents or grandparent is causing any harm to his development”.

In so far as [B] was concerned, a written assessment from Priory Education and Childcare Services, dated 16 July 2021, was provided which included the following observations,

“[B] is able to concentrate for longer periods of time and her attention has increased. [B] has started to retain taught skills which is supporting her learning and helping her to make progress. [B] is making good progress with her reading, fluency and comprehension. [B’s] concentration and attention in class has increased. [B] is able to stay focused on tasks for an increased amount of time……[B’s] social and play skills have improved. We are seeing her interact more with peers and break and lunch play, with less support required from adults. [B] has made friends within the class and with other students from other classes. [B] feels happy, settled and included within her class at school. [B’s] self-esteem and confidence in her abilities is improving. [B] loves to ‘show off’ her new skills. [B] has transitioned well into the school environment this has been achieved”.

The SSHD considered the further material, and again decided not to revoke the deportation order, as its continuance did not involve a breach of Article 8, as there were no very compelling circumstances so as to override the public interest in the maintenance of effective immigration controls.

In reaching this decision, the SSHD stated that,

“In order to outweigh the very significant public interest in deporting your client, you would need to provide evidence of a very strong Article 8 claim over and above the circumstances provided in the exceptions to deportation. You have failed to do so.”

In relation to the respondent’s son and daughter-in-law, the SSHD observed that,

“It is acknowledged that your client has lived with her son and daughter in law as a family unit in South Africa and they would have relied on each other’s support. However, your client’s son and daughter in law and her grandchildren moved to UK to provide better health and medical facilities to their children and for themselves.

It is noted that your client’s son …Courtnall…. and his wife … have settled well in UK and have integrated successfully into the UK society. They are living and working in UK with access to health and social benefits as British citizens. [They] have the support of health and social welfare system in UK to enable them to live a productive life. As evident from the fact that [his wife] has been able to set up her own dog grooming business and [Courtnall], as he is not working, is eligible for family credit. [They] have the support of NHS and DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) for their medical and financial needs and they do not have to rely on anyone for medical and financial support.

……

It is believed that [they] can visit your client in South Africa whenever they desire, and they can keep in contact with your client with modern means of communication”.

Furthermore, in relation to the grandchildren, the SSHD observed that,

“It is acknowledged that it will be unduly harsh for the children to return to South Africa. Their parents have moved to the UK to provide them with a better life and they are living in the UK with their parents who are their primary carers.

It is not acknowledged that it will be unduly harsh for your client’s grandchildren to remain in UK without their grandmother.

…..

The assessments for [the children], have been prepared by highly trained specialist teachers and staff looking after special needs children. The assessments have not shown any sign of both (sic) the children not responding to their new environment or any negative impact on their emotional and educational development by the absence of a member of family. Both the children are making good improvement with regards to their emotional, educational and social development which was the cause of their relocation to UK.

It is acknowledged that [the children] do not have their grandmother around since their move to UK, however they are making great improvements in their life with the help of their parents, teachers and staff at their individual schools. The children have continued to live with their parents who have provided a stable base and support as they have had to adapt to life without face-to-face contact with their grandmother”.

Although the SSHD had previously concluded that the respondent’s Article 8 right to private life was not engaged, as she had no private life in the UK, the SSHD acknowledged that the respondent had both medical and care needs, but considered that the respondent had access to suitable facilities in South Africa in order to meet those needs, such that there were no very compelling circumstances arising from this aspect of her life.

The SSHD went on to point out that although there was no right of appeal against a decision to refuse to revoke a deportation order, the respondent could appeal to the FTT against the decision to refuse her human rights claim under section 82(1) of the 2002 Act, on the grounds that the decision was unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.