Emmanuel v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 1971 |
| Date | 27 April 1971 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
P. N. Dalton Esq. (Vice-President), Major R. A. K. MacAllan, B. J. S. Edmond Esq.
Sir Derek Hilton (President) Sir J. D. Rankine, L. Golding Esq.
P. Tucker of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, for the appellant.
C. F. Woodiss for the respondent.
M. W. Wilson MP for the appellant.
C. F. Woodiss for the respondent.
1. EMMANUEL v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
2. MARTIN v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Children Sole responsibility for the child's upbringing What must be established by sponsoring parent in United Kingdom Cmnd 4298, para 39.
The words sole responsibility in para 39 of Cmnd 4298 (Commonwealth Immigrants Acts 1962 and 1968: Instructions to Immigration Officers)1 cannot reasonably be construed in their most strictly literal terms to mean absolute responsibility of the parent in the United Kingdom for the upbringing of the child concerned, because some form of responsibility must in nearly all cases be exercised in practical matters by the relative with whom the child is living outside the United Kingdom. The issue of sole responsibility for the upbringing of a child is not, however, to be decided only as between one parent and the other parent. The decision in every case will depend on its own particular facts, and this will involve consideration inter alia of the sources and degree of financial support for the child, and whether there is cogent evidence of genuine interest in and affection for the child by the sponsoring parent in the United Kingdom.
The Determinations of the Tribunal in the two appeals here reported deal with a number of factors which will be relevantthough not exclusiveconsiderations in a majority of cases.
Determination
The appellant Miss Janie Jane Emmanuel applied in St Lucia in April 1969 for an entry certificate to the United Kingdom in order to join her mother Mrs. Geraldine Justin who lives in Forest Gate, London. The appellant was born in 1958 and her mother left St Lucia and came to England in 1962; the natural father of the appellant is a man named Walderon Fanus, who lives in St Lucia. In considering the appellant's application the Home Office had regard to the provisions of para 39 of Cmnd 4298. This paragraph reads in part as follows:
39. A child under the age of 18 may be admitted in company with or to join only one parent, although the other is resident outside the United Kingdom, if the parent in the United Kingdom has had the sole responsibility for the child's upbringing. In the case of a legitimate child of parents whose marriage has been dissolved, the parent in the United Kingdom should have had legal custody as well as responsibility for upbringing.
In the Home Office view Mrs. Justin was unable to show that she had had sole responsibility for the appellant's upbringing since she came to the United Kingdom in 1962. In view of this and the fact that there appeared to be no special circumstances which made the child's exclusion from the United Kingdom undesirable, the application for an entry certificate was refused.
After 1962 the appellant stayed with her grandmother and then went to stay with her aunt when the grandmother died in 1969. The adjudicator found as a fact that the appellant's father, Walderon Fanus, still lives in St Lucia about ten miles from the appellant's home and has seen her at least once fairly recently, but he takes no interest in his daughter and has never played any part in her life, despite a request to him for financial help from Mrs. Justin shortly before she left for the United Kingdom. The adjudicator then said in his determination:
Mrs. Justin claimsand I believe herto have sent money regularly for the appellant's upkeep but she does not dispute that the daily burden of practical responsibility has fallen upon the child's grandmother and, latterly, her aunt. Mr. Tucker argued that the question of sole responsibility is one to be decided as between parent and parent and not as between parent and the world, and that the father's total withdrawal has, in effect, left Mrs. Justin with sole responsibility. The grandmother's role, Mr. Tucker went on to argue, was simply that which arose from the customary delegation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alagon v Entry clearance officer, Manila
...Cases referred to in the judgment: Adair v Colville & Son [1926] SC(HL) 51. Emmanuel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1972] Imm AR 69. Sloley v Entry Clearance Officer, Kingston [1973] Imm AR 54. Watt v Lord AdvocateSC [1979] SC 120. Donald v Rutherford [1984] SLT 70. Forsyth v......
-
TD (paragraph 297(I) (e): 'Sole responsibility') Yemen
...RulesRule 297 (e): sole responsibility) Philippines [2003] UKIAT 00109 Emmanuel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1972] Imm AR 69 Entry Clearance Officer, Accra v Otuo-Acheampong [2002] UKIAT 06687 Entry Clearance Officer, Kingston v Martin [1978] Imm AR 100 Eugene v Entry Clear......
-
TD (Paragraph 297(i))
...carer in the country of origin. Leading Tribunal decisions 8 We turn first to consider the leading Tribunal decisions of Emmanuel v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 69; Martin v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 71; Sloley v ECO, Kingston [1973] Imm AR 54; and Rudolph v ECO, Colombo [1984] Imm AR 84. 9 Our starting poi......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2006-05-24, [2006] UKAIT 49 (TD (Paragraph 297(i)(e): sole responsibility))
...carer in the country of origin. Leading Tribunal decisions We turn first to consider the leading Tribunal decisions of Emmanuel v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 69; Martin v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 71; Sloley v ECO, Kingston [1973] Imm AR 54; and Rudolph v ECO, Colombo [1984] Imm AR Our starting point is th......