Court of Appeal confirms that application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court does not prevent deportation

The Court of Appeal has said that Lane J was “plainly correct” in his finding that a pending application to the Supreme Court does not act as an barrier to deportation on the basis that the appeal has not yet been finally determined. The case is R (Geddes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 353.

The Home Secretary decided that the appellant’s deportation would be conducive to the public good on 28 April 2014. His appeals were unsuccessful and on 19 September 2017, the day that a deportation order was made against him, he had an appeal pending in the Supreme Court. The appellant was detained on 30 October 2017 and a judicial review application was issued on 13 November 2017 challenging the deportation order.

On the same day, the Supreme Court made an order preventing the appellant’s removal until his appeal had been determined. The appellant was released on bail and sought damages for unlawful detention. The judicial review was stayed behind the Supreme Court’s case. The Supreme Court refused permission on 15 February 2022. The judicial review was dismissed by Lane J (see my previous write up for full details).

Section 104(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended in 2005, sets out very specific circumstances where an appeal will not be considered to be finally determined. This does not include an appeal to the Supreme Court and both Lane J and the Court of Appeal considered this to be determinative. The court summarised the decision as follows:

A foreign national, convicted of a serious offence, is given notice that the Secretary of State has decided that his deportation from the UK would be conducive to the public good. He appeals unsuccessfully to the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, then files an application to the Supreme Court seeking permission to appeal. In the absence of a stay, can a deportation order lawfully be made against him before the Supreme Court has dealt with his application? Lane J answered the question “yes” and I agree with him.