Jarryd Luke Du Plessis (AP) for Judicial Review of decision by Secretary of State for the Home Department (Court of Session)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Petitioner is a national of Country A who arrived in Country B in 2005 as a child and was granted indefinite leave to remain. In May 2024 he was convicted of an assault offence; in June 2024 he was sentenced to 58 weeks' imprisonment. On 26 September 2024 the Respondent issued a deportation order classifying him as a foreign criminal. The Petitioner (through Attorney Forrest of Company A) made representations relying on Article 8 ECHR and submitted supporting documents including nine undated, unsigned letters said to be from family and friends and a woman described by the Petitioner as his Partner. By letter dated 12 December 2024 the Respondent (through Attorney Dingley of Company B) rejected those representations. The Petitioner sought judicial review alleging the Respondent's decision was irrational. The decision-maker was Judge Braid in the Outer House, Court of Session.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent was irrational in finding that Exception 2 (family-life exception; a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner whose hardship would be unduly harsh) did not apply.
2. Whether the Respondent was irrational in finding that Exception 1 (private-life exception; lawful residence for most of life, social and cultural integration in Country B, and very significant obstacles to integration in Country A) did not apply.
3. Whether, more generally, the Respondent's conclusion that no very compelling circumstances existed to displace the presumption in favour of deportation was legally flawed.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The Respondent erred by giving no weight to the unsigned and undated letters; decision-maker should consider all evidence in the round (Tanveer Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department cited).
• The Respondent failed to consider, even on an esto basis, the effect of deportation on the Partner.
• The Respondent applied inappropriate weight to offending when assessing social and cultural integration and failed to apply a common-sense, broad evaluative approach to obstacles to integration in Country A.

Respondent's Arguments

• The statutory scheme presumes deportation of foreign criminals; courts should not substitute their view for the decision-maker's (RQK and Regina v Ministry of Defence cited).
• The Respondent properly considered all evidence; unsigned, undated statements could be rejected and the burden lay on the Petitioner to produce reliable evidence of relationship (photographs, bank statements, etc.).
• The Respondent permissibly took offending into account in assessing integration and carried out the required broad evaluative assessment of obstacles to reintegration in Country A.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Braid framed the applicable statutory and rule-based tests (section 117C of the 2002 Act; Part 13 of the Immigration Rules) and applied the ordinary irrationality/Wednesbury standard (as explained in Regina v Ministry of Defence). He declined to apply a more or less rigorous standard than normal despite the human-rights context because Parliament had already determined the general policy presumption in favour of deportation; the task was to assess factually whether either statutory exception applied.

On Exception 2 (family-life): the Respondent rejected undated, unsigned letters (including from the Partner and the Mother's letter) as unreliable; Judge Braid held it was within the Respondent's discretion to attach no weight to such statements—particularly when all had identical appearance and there was no other corroborating evidence (photographs, joint accounts, etc.). Because the provenance and reliability of those statements were not established, the Respondent's conclusion that no genuine and subsisting relationship had been shown was not irrational. The Judge also held that, having rejected that relationship, the Respondent was not obliged to consider the secondary question of undue harshness to the Partner on an esto basis.

On Exception 1 (private life): the Respondent accepted lawful long residence (first limb) but found the Petitioner not socially and culturally integrated (second limb), having regard to upbringing, education, employment, criminal history and other factors. Judge Braid reviewed authorities cautioning against double-counting offending but concluded the Respondent had taken the material factors into account and, given the paucity of reliable supporting evidence from the Petitioner, her conclusion fell within the range of reasonable decisions. On the third limb (very significant obstacles to integration in Country A), the Respondent made a brief broad evaluative judgment that the Petitioner retained skills, language familiarity and capacity to re-integrate; the Judge found no error and held that the Petitioner had not discharged the high onus to show very significant obstacles.

Overall, the Judge concluded the Petitioner had not shown irrationality or legal error in the Respondent's assessment of either exception; the decision of 12 December 2024 therefore stood.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition for judicial review is refused; the Petitioner’s challenge to the Respondent’s decision of 12 December 2024 is dismissed.

Implications: The Respondent's deportation decision remains lawful and operative; the Court found no error of law or irrationality in the assessment of Exceptions 1 or 2 or in the decision that no very compelling circumstances exist. The Court ordered that no expenses be due to or by either party. The decision did not purport to create new legal precedent beyond application of existing authorities to the facts.