R (Evans) v Attorney General
[2015] UKSC 21, at [51] – [59]. 14. The next step in the Appellants’ argument involves the proposition that it is for the c ourt or t ribunal concerned to decide the issue of proportionality under Article 8(2) ECHR. In performing this function the c ourt or t ribunal decides how much weight is to be attributed to competing considerations in determining how the balance should be struck between the public interest and protected individual rights: see inter alia ,
- ntroduction
- The Issues
- Statutory Framework
- consequence
- (Sections 117A – 117D)
- YM (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- three
- The Second Issue
- Re P
- R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal
- R (Evans) v Attorney General
- Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- must
- only
- in all cases
- other than
- relevant
- immaterial
- an instruction
- Wednesbury
- Cart
- Evans
- he Third Issue
- establishment
- formation
- continuation and extension
- The Fourth Issue
- AM (S117B) Malawi
- (Returnees – criminal and non-criminal) DRC
- Section 117B(5):
- Jeunesse v the Netherlands
- The court has previously held that, in general, persons in that situation have no entitlement to expect that a right of residence will be conferred upon them
- B v Sweden
- precarious
- Omnibus Conclusion and Decision
- Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
- introduc
- The Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2014