In an appeal against a deportation order upheld by the Upper Tribunal, the First-tier Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellant was not a persistent offender and therefore not a “foreign criminal” for the purposes of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s.117D. Although there had been gaps in his offending, the FTT should have focused on the overall picture and recognised that the absence of offending was partly due to his imprisonment. It had also erred in regarding the appellant’s association with a criminal gang as an example of his social and cultural integration, and in describing him as a “home grown criminal” in concluding that there were significant obstacles to reintegration in his country of origin.
RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
A district judge had been entitled to conclude that an offender’s extradition to Poland would not disproportionately interfere with his rights under ECHR art.8. Although he had family ties in the UK, he was a 28-year-old single man with no dependants.
A district judge had made no error in finding that a European arrest warrant had been sufficiently particularised, that the offence in question met the dual criminality requirements of the Extradition Act 2003, and that extradition was not disproportionate with respect to the ECHR art.8 rights of the requested person and her family.
A district judge had been entitled to conclude that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite an accused to Poland by reason of the passage of time, despite the fact that there had been an 11-year delay between the date of the alleged extradition offences and his arrest.
The secretary of state had been entitled not to order the deportation under the Tariff-Expired Removal Scheme of an Irish national whose minimum term of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection had expired.