ZZ, appeal by
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 April 2015 |
| Case Outcome | Allowed |
| Court | Special Immigration Appeals Commission |
| Appellant | ZZ |
| Subject Matter | Exclusion |
SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
Appeal No: SC/63/2007
Hearing Dates: 8th, 10th & 11th December 2014
Date of Judgment: 1st April 2015
BEFORE:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE IRWIN
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS
MR STEPHEN PARKER
BETWEEN: ZZ Appellant
And
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
OPEN JUDGMENT IN REMITTED APPEAL
MR H SOUTHEY QC and MR N ARMSTRONG (instructed by Public Law Project)
appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR T EICKE QC and MR D CRAIG QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared
on behalf of the Respondent
MR A UNDERWOOD QC and MR M GOUDIE (Instructed by Special Advocates'
Support Office) appeared as Special Advocates
- - - - - - - -
ZZ v SSHD
Mr Justice Irwin :
Introduction
1. This case has been the subject of extended litigation. This judgment should be
read together with the OPEN judgment on the question of disclosure dated 8
August 2014 and the part judgment moved into OPEN, of July 2014.
2. In short summary, ZZ has dual nationality, Algerian and French. On 25
August 2005 the Secretary of State cancelled his indefinite leave to remain in
the United Kingdom and excluded him from the United Kingdom. The Home
Office had been notified on 19 August 2005 - that is to say six days before
those decisions - that ZZ had left the UK. His application for naturalisation
was refused on 30 August 2005. A little over a year later, on 18 September
2006, the Appellant arrived at Heathrow from Algeria, presenting his French
passport. He was refused admission to the country and removed to Algeria.
His challenge is to the refusal to admit him to the UK on that date.
3. The matter turns on Regulation 19(1) of the Immigration (European Economic
Area) Regulations 2006. The refusal to permit his entry was justified within
those Regulations on grounds of public security. The matter came to SIAC
following certification by the Secretary of State on 15 March 2007.
4. In a judgment of 30 July 2008, SIAC concluded that:
“The personal conduct of ZZ represents a genuine present and
sufficiently serious threat which affects a fundamental interest
of society namely its public security and that it outweighs his
and [his family’s] right to enjoy family life in the UK.”
(paragraph 20)
Which was sufficient “to justify the Secretary of State’s decision to exclude
him from the United Kingdom” (paragraph 21).
5. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. In a judgment handed down
on 19 April 2011, see ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011]
EWCA Civ 440, the Court of Appeal considered a number of points taken on
appeal. The first point concerned procedural fairness and disclosure. On that
issue the Court of Appeal referred a question to the Court of Justice of the
European Union [“CJEU”].
6. The later procedural history in this case is well known. Following the referral
to the CJEU, that Court gave judgment on 4 June 2013, setting out the
requirement for disclosure of the Appellant of the “essence of the grounds” of
the case against him. The Court of Appeal considered the judgment of the
CJEU on 24 January 2014, see: ZZ v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 7 and remitted
the matter on that day to SIAC to reconsider the Appellant’s exclusion
applying the principles laid down in the CJEU. The Court of Appeal added
the following:
“Lord Justice Richards:
Page 2
To continue reading
Request your trial