SC, a national of Zimbabwe who had entered the United Kingdom in 2001 and been granted indefinite leave to remain in 2010, was convicted in 2013 of seven offences involving dishonesty committed over a period of six years, and sentenced to three terms of imprisonment, to be served consecutively, totalling 21 months. The Home Secretary considered that she was a persistent offender within paragraph 398(c) of the Immigration Rules and there were no other exceptional or compelling circumstances outweighing the public interest in deportation. Accordingly she was served with a deportation order on the basis that it was in the public interest to deport her as a foreign criminal and a persistent offender within the meaning of section 117D(2)(c)(iii) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended. The First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal respectively dismissed her appeals which had been made on the ground that deportation was contrary to her right to respect for her private and family life under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
On SC’s appeal—
Held, appeal dismissed. Once a case came before a tribunal or a court, what had to be applied was section 117D(2)(c) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, rather than paragraph 398(c) of the Immigration Rules. A persistent offender within section 117D(c)(iii) was someone who kept breaking the law. It was not a permanent status that once acquired could never be lost, but it could apply to a person who had not offended for some time and was not currently offending, depending on the facts of the particular case including the overall picture and pattern of offending over the person’s entire offending history. There had to be a history of repeated criminal conduct over a sufficiently long period, but the criminal offences need not be of the same character. The court was not required to attach significant weight to the decision of the Home Secretary to reach the initial decision to make the deportation order. On the facts SC was a persistent offender who had committed repeated offending of a similar character over a six-year period. That conclusion was not affected by the fact that all the offending was dealt with on a single occasion at the Crown Court (paras 19–27, 28, 29).
Decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) affirmed.
John Walsh (instructed by Universe Solicitors) for SC.
Marcus Pilgerstorfer (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary.