Sanambar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 30 (16 July 2021)

Citation:Sanambar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 30 (16 July 2021).

Rule of thumb:If an immigrant in the UK serves a custodial sentence for a serious crime, should they automatically be deported upon release? Yes, This case confirmed a very important fundamental point of that that if a person does not possess a UK passport and they commit serious crimes in the UK which result in a significant prison sentence, then there is a strong likelihood that they will be deported from the UK to their country of origin upon their release from prison, no matter how strong their social ties to the UK are and how weak their social ties are to their country of origin, with it only being in the most exceptional of circumstances that this will not apply.

Background facts:

This case invoked the subject of immigration law.

The facts of this case were that Mr Sanambar was born in Iraq in 1995. Sanambar arrived in the United Kingdom in 2005 when he was 10 years old to join his Mother who was living in the UK. Sanambar was given indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Sanambar was fairly intelligent, obtained some decent GCSE qualifications at school, and had the ability to make a positive contribution to society. However, Sanambar was a rogue who had no intention of applying himself properly in society. In 2009, when Sanambar was 14 and still a child, he started getting involved in petty crimes and then more serious violent crime – he was given a 12 month referral order for armed robbery. This pattern of serious crime was continued by Sanambar into early adulthood with more criminal offences committed, and he committed a targeted series of armed robberies on ‘young posh people’ aged around 15-18. Sanambar then spent 3 years in a Young Offenders Institute. The Home Office decided that Sanambar at no point showed any signs of settling down and leading a regular lifestyle in which he contributed to society in a positive way, and instead his offending was set to get more serious. Once Sanambar was released from YOI for his series of armed robberies, the UK Home Office sought to deport Sanambar back to Iraq at this point, and the matter ended up in Court.

Sanambar argued that this expulsion measure was disproportionate. He argued that these offences took place when he was still a child and still learning. Sanambar explained that he had a network of friends in the UK, and his mother was in the UK who he was close to and who would be distraught if he was deported. Sanambar argued that he had next to no family or friends in Iraq, his command of the Arabic language in Iraq was extremely basic at best and he would have major problems fitting into Iraqi society. Sanambar argued these arguments had to be interpreted alongside his human right to privacy and family life.

The Home Office argued that due to the perpetration of serious crimes by Sanambar he had to be be deported. They argued that Sanambar had shown no sign at any time of making a positive contribution to UK society, and the pattern of his lifestyle he was following made it fairly inevitable at some stage that he would use an offensive weapon on someone and gravely injure them. The Home Office argued that it was a clear point of modern UK immigration law that if people are not born in the UK and they commit serious crimes, with absolutely no signs shown by them of them making a positive contribution to UK society, then they are deported. The Home Office further argued that this fundamental point of law applied regardless of how long a person had been in the UK and how deep their roots were in UK society, or how little their connection was to their country of origin. The Home Office argued that it would be a breach of immigration law to allow an immigrant to consistently cause havoc in UK society through the perpetration of serious crime, make no positive contribution to society, and have authorities sit around and wait for the person to gravely assault another person with an offensive weapon in the UK.

Judgment:

The Court upheld the arguments of the UK Home Office. They affirmed the fundamentally clear position of UK immigration law, as affirmed in various Acts of Parliament, is that if any immigrant in the UK, pretty much no matter how long they have been in the UK and how deeply established they are in the UK, or how weak their social ties are to their country of origin, persistently commits serious crimes over many years, then they will be deported back to their country of origin. They affirmed this position was compatible with the UK’s obligation under human rights law. In short, the UK Supreme Court basically affirmed the broad fundamental point of UK immigration that generally speaking, if someone does not have a UK passport and they commit serious crimes in the UK, then they will be deported.

centered image

Ratio-decidendi:

‘64. …. Given the seriousness of the offending and the continuing risk of serious harm resulting from criminal offending it (the Home Office) did not consider that the deportation of the appellant was disproportionate or that there were very compelling reasons to prevent it. It gave relevant and sufficient reasons for its conclusion. There was substantial material to support its view that the interference with the private and family life of the appellant was outweighed by the public interest in the prevention of crime… Appeal dismissed.’ Judge Sir Declan Morgan at 64

Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.