- BY Colin Yeo
Update on Haleemudeen vs Edgehill
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
Haleemudeen on remittal to UT: SoS conceded Edgehill applied, no need for deference to post-July 2012 and found disproportionate on Art 8
— Mansfield Chambers (@MansfieldImm) June 20, 2014
Free Movement write up and prediction here.
And an update from Paul Richardson, Counsel for Mr Haleemudeen:
Appeal was remitted rather reluctantly by CA to UT for redetermination of Art 8. Heard by Lady Justice Simler and UTJ Kopiecek.
UT accepted that Edgehill applied and that the matter had to be decided on the basis of the old pre-July 2012 Rules. They also, however, accepted counsel’s submission that the fact that, after a favourable rule change, the appellant met the substantive rules at the date of his appeal hearing was highly relevant to proportionally. The relaxation of the rule on spent convictions weakened the SSHD’s ability to rely on the rule.
UT also agreed that it was relevant to proportionality that the appellant came to UK on a route that, all things being equal, would have led to settlement. Ties were put down when status far from precarious.
Appeal allowed on Art 8 grounds. Unclear if will be reported.
Thanks Paul!
SHARE
