Case No. UKUT-00628-(IAC)

14. The appellant’s appeal was heard in the First-tier Tribunal on 30 September 2014 by First-tier Tribunal Judge Pullig. 15. At [17] to [24], Judge Pullig recorded the documentary evidence before him. 16. For the respondent, the evidence included: a Police National Computer Printout (PNC) dated 6 November 2013 listing the appellant’s convictions as at that date; a further updated PNC dated 29 September 2014; the witness statement MG11 together with supporting evidence and details of the police investigations into the appellant’s activities; and the appellant’s completed family questionnaire including evidence about his relationship with his children. 17. For the appellant, the evidence included: witness statements from the appellant, his wife, his former partner, his mother-in-law; evidence of cohabitation with his wife; evidence relating to the appellant’s children; photographs of the appellant with his children; various certificates of awards; probation reports; letters of support; and evidence of the appellant’s involvement in drug rehabilitation programmes. 18. Judge Pullig noted that the appellant had recently been convicted of a further offence, the supply of a controlled drug class A crack cocaine, for which he was sentenced on 14 August 2014 to a two year prison sentence suspended for two years with twelve months’ supervision order and a victim surcharge of £120. 19. The author of the witness statement (MG11), an officer with the Metropolitan Police Nexus team, gave evidence at the hearing and Judge Pullig recorded his evidence. He recorded the evidence in the witness statement, which set out details of further incidents in which the appellant was involved but which did not result in conviction, including matters relating to drugs, allegations of assault involving BB and other allegations or suspicions of wrongdoing. With regard to the allegations of assault it was noted that there were three incidents involving BB, but on each occasion no further action was taken. The other areas of concern were mainly domestic incidents involving the appellant’s ex-wife, his wife and the mother of his other child, but where no allegations were pursued against the appellant and where no action was taken. Judge Pullig also referred to the list, in the officer’s statement (MG11), of the appellant’s associates, each of whom had numerous convictions for drugs offences. With regard to the officer’s oral evidence, the judge recorded that he believed that most of the domestic incidents involved no further action because the appellant was controlling his partners who were unwilling to pursue prosecution. The officer could not understand why the appellant’s sentence for the last conviction, on 14 August 2014, was so lenient and he considered that the appellant was an active drug dealer. 20. The appellant himself gave evidence before the judge about his relationship with his children and his past drug addiction, claiming to be currently totally abstinent. His wife gave oral evidence, as did GB. 21. Judge Pullig viewed BB’s claim, that the appellant had never been violent towards her, with considerable scepticism, but he accepted that they were married and that there was a relationship between them, albeit one not without its problems. He accepted the police officer’s conclusions about the appellant being a drug dealer and did not accept the appellant’s claim that he had no intent to supply. The judge, however, considered that the evidence pointed to the appellant having a positive relationship with each of his three children and found that he played a really significant role in LMC’s upbringing in particular. He found that the children’s interests, and particularly those of LMC, were best served by the appellant’s continued presence in the United Kingdom. 22. Having made those findings, the judge went on to consider Article 8. He found that the appellant could not succeed under the immigration rules because he failed to meet the suitability requirements. He found that the appellant failed under S-LTR.1.5 and S-LTR.1.6: as regards S-LTR.1.5 on the basis that it was the Secretary of State’s view that his offending caused serious harm and that it was debateable whether he could be considered as a persistent offender; and as regards S-LTR.1.6 on the basis of his character, associations and conduct. 23. The judge then went on to consider Article 8 in its wider context outside the rules. In so doing, he took account of the public interest considerations in section 117 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which had come into effect since the respondent’s decision but which, in accordance with the guidance in