Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2019-08-07, HU/02444/2018
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 07 August 2019 |
| Published date | 24 September 2019 |
| Hearing Date | 11 June 2019 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | HU/02444/2018 |
Appeal Number: HU/02444/2018
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/02444/2018
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 11th June 2019 |
On 7th August 2019 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE REEDS
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PLIMMER
Between
UM
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Alam, Counsel instructed by Khan’s Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Lindsay, Senior Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
-
The appellant appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Bristow) (hereinafter referred to as the “FtTJ”) promulgated on the 26th April 2018 in which the Tribunal dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse his protection and human rights claim in the context of the respondent having made a deportation order against him under Section 32(5) (of the UK Borders Act 2007).
-
The FtT did not make an anonymity direction. However as the appellant has made a protection claim we think it right at this stage to make a direction regarding anonymity under Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) Rules 2008. Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the Appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify her. This direction applies both to the Appellant and to the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
Background:
-
The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born in 1989. He entered the United Kingdom on the 27 February 1991 with his mother and was granted six months leave to enter.
-
On 15th of March 1991 his mother claimed asylum and in October 1994 claim was refused. Her appeal against the decision was dismissed on 26 June 1998.
-
On 23rd of October 2002 the appellant’s mother made an application for leave to remain under the seven-year child concession stating that she had separated from her husband due to domestic violence.
-
On 14 January 2003 the appellant’s mother submitted an application for settlement including the appellant as her dependant.
-
On 10 March 2003 the appellant was granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR) as the dependent of his mother, who was granted by ILR on the basis of the seven-year child concession.
His criminality:
-
On 18 April 2007 he was convicted at the Juvenile Court of two counts of attempted robbery and given a referral order for nine months. On 11 July 2007 the referral order was revoked, and he was re-sentenced to a community order, with a supervision requirement for 12 months and a curfew requirement for 30 days.
-
On 11 July 2007 he was convicted of robbery and sentenced to a community order, with a supervision requirement for 12 months and a curfew requirement for 30 days.
-
On 7 July 2011 he was convicted of possessing a controlled drug (class B cannabis) and fined £33.
-
On 26 August 2016 the appellant was convicted at the Crown Court for a number of offences of robbery and attempted robbery. He faced a nine-count indictment which included counts 7-9 representing the possession of an imitation firearm when committing a schedule one offence.
-
On 22nd of December 2016 he was sentenced to 6 ½ years’ imprisonment. The sentencing remarks are set out at [G1]. The appellant had pleaded guilty to 4 offences of robbery, five offences of attempted robbery and three offences of possession of an imitation firearm at the time of committing the offences. The offences were committed between 11 June and 1 August 2016.
-
On 11 June he committed three offences; two of robbery and one of attempted robbery. He committed a robbery at a betting office and five minutes later went into a store where he produced an imitation firearm to the cashier who was five months pregnant. That was the attempted robbery. From there he went to a large chemist where he again produced an imitation firearm and robbed the assistant of £50. This was later recovered from a bin at the rear of the store.
-
On 20 June he committed three offences of attempted robbery; he attempted to rob another store by threatening the assistant with acid and at 6:30 PM and 7:05 PM attempted to rob a betting office and a coffee shop by threatening the assistant with the bomb. He was arrested for the betting office offence on 20 June which he admitted and was then released on bail.
-
On 27th July carried out robbery at a bookmaker where he stole £450 by threatening to shoot the assistant there. He was arrested on 30 July for the offences at the bookmakers and the coffee shop on 20 June. He admitted them and again was released on bail.
-
On 31 July he attempted to rob a bookmaker by threatening to throw excrement and urine over the counter.
-
On 1 August he robbed a bookmaker of £330 by producing an imitation firearm and demanding the cash.
-
It had been agreed between the parties that those offences fell into the category of less sophisticated, commercial robberies. The Judge was satisfied that where imitation firearms or other legal weapons were produced, they fell within category A of high culpability and category 2 harm. However, the sheer number of the offences put them outside the Sentencing Council Guidelines.
-
The judge identified the following aggravating features in the appellant’s case; he had previous convictions for one robbery and two attempted robberies which were all street offences; they were committed in 2007 when he was 17 years old so they were over nine years old at the time of the present offences and therefore the judge discounted them. Secondly, the appellant had committed the robberies of the bookmakers on 22 July and the robbery of betting office and the possession of the imitation firearm on the 1 August, the attempted robbery of a further betting office on 31 July whilst on bail, and the last three offences in time when he had also been granted bail on two separate occasions. The judge considered that it merited consecutive sentences.
-
The judge accepted that they were not sophisticated offences and on a number of occasions he took no steps to disguise his appearance. The pre-sentence report and the psychiatric report revealed that he been addicted to gambling and carried out the offences in order to frighten the staff into handing over money with which he intended to carry out further gambling.
-
The judge gave full credit to guilty pleas but reached the conclusion that the offences were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. He was not assessed as a “dangerous offender” as defined and therefore determinate sentences were imposed. The judge therefore sentenced the appellant to a total of 6 ½ years’ imprisonment.
-
As a result of his criminality, on June 1, 2017 the appellant was served with a stage I deportation decision (see H1-H7).
-
On 16 June 2017 his solicitors Malik Law Chambers responded stating that deportation would breach his human rights (at [I1-I115]). The submissions made reference to his immigration history- having arrived in the UK with his parents in 1991 aged one year and two months lived all of his life in the UK and that he was granted ILR in 2003.
-
It was stated that he had two sisters and a brother living in the UK – all were born in the UK and were British nationals. His parents were settled and had ILR. He had close extended family members and had lived with his mother and siblings before he was sent to prison. He had no memory of life in Pakistan and had always considered himself British. He had been outside the UK only once and he did not speak the Pakistani language having grew up in Britain with limited exposure to Pakistani culture. In Pakistan he would have no friends, family, home or knowledge of the language or culture as he had adapted to the English way of way of life.
-
It was said he had no connections in Pakistan and would have difficulty surviving because he could not speak the language, and not having any relations or links to the Pakistani culture which would make it difficult to adapt to life in Pakistan. He would not be able to find a job to establish himself there.
-
Furthermore, it was asserted the due to his depression he would not be able to adjust, and this would make sense of local customs more difficulties.
-
It was asserted that there were “compelling and exceptional circumstances” and that his removal violated his human rights and Article 8.
-
At paragraph 5 [G13] the letter provided a number of documents from 1-14.
-
The appellant made a human right claim on the 16 June 2017.
-
On 8 January 2018 a deportation order was made. (see [K1]).
-
On the 9 January 2018 a decision was made to refuse a human rights claim.
The respondent’s decision:
-
The decision letter set out that Section 32 (5) of the UK Borders Act 2007 required a deportation order be made against him unless he could demonstrate that he fell within any of the specified exceptions set out in Section 33 of that Act. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial