William Gadinala v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 1410
Secretary of State for the Home Department v William George
14 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1192
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of manslaughter for a gang murder. The government wanted to deport him, but a court said he wasn't a threat anymore. The government appealed, arguing his past crime should be enough to deport him. The higher court disagreed, saying that wasn't the right test. The man stays in the UK.
Key Facts
- •Mr. George, a Belgian citizen, arrived in the UK in 2004 and was convicted of manslaughter in 2017 for his role in a gang murder.
- •He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.
- •The Secretary of State issued a deportation order on 'imperative grounds of public security'.
- •The UT dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal, finding no genuine, present, and sufficiently serious threat to public security.
- •The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the UT erred by not considering whether Mr. George's past conduct alone justified deportation under *R v Bouchereau*.
Legal Principles
Appellate authorities must apply Convention jurisprudence to established facts, but are not bound by arguments presented.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Robinson [1997] EWCA Civ 3090
Decisions on grounds of public policy or public security must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual. Previous convictions are not grounds in themselves, but the conduct leading to them may be considered if it constitutes a present threat.
R v Bouchereau (Case 30/77) [1978] 1 QB 732
Imperative grounds of public security is a more stringent and narrower test than serious grounds of public policy or public security; it requires an actual risk to public security, so compelling that it justifies the exceptional removal of a long-term resident.
LG (Italy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 190
Imperative grounds of public security require a threat of a high degree of seriousness. While serious criminality such as drug dealing can qualify, the test is considerably stricter than 'serious grounds'.
Land Baden-Wűrttemburg v Tsakouridis (C-145/09) [2011] 2 CMLR 261
Past conduct alone may justify deportation exceptionally, where it causes 'deep public revulsion'. However, this is limited and requires very extreme facts.
Robinson (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 85
The Secretary of State has a significant role in defining relevant interests and applying the criteria for deportation. The UT is not required to consider points expressly abandoned by the Secretary of State.
This case and Shyti v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 770
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal.
The UT correctly applied the 'imperative grounds of public security' test and found no sufficient threat to justify deportation. The *Bouchereau* principle regarding public policy is irrelevant to the higher standard of 'imperative grounds of public security'. The Secretary of State abandoned the *Bouchereau* argument in the UT.
Similar Cases
FN (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 1350
Engin Yalcin v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 74
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v AA (Poland)
[2024] EWCA Civ 18
Audi Dama Masozera Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 182