MB and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
The clients in this matter faced the possibility of removal from the UK due to their presence in the UK not being viewed as conducive to the public good. One of the main reasons for refusal was on the grounds of suitability owing to offences committed in previous years under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Fraud Act 2006 by two of the clients. Both clients were given suspended sentences in relation to (1) the offence for Obtaining Leave by Deception (Immigration offence) and (2) by False Representation (Fraud Offence).
Our clients instructed that they were misled by the legal adviser who had previously represented them on their Immigration matters. They maintained that they were placed under pressure and coerced into taking the actions that resulted in their conviction. Notwithstanding the fact that our clients were not given custodial sentences, they expressed remorse for their actions and for their part in the commission of the offences which resulted in these convictions. They maintained that they would refrain from any actions in the future that might bring them to the adverse attention of the authorities.
During a conference with Counsel, the Appellant’s Counsel commented on the problematic nature of this case: a major concern was the possibility of the family being torn apart, as well as the difficulty of achieving a favourable decision.
The clients’ case was prepared with meticulous consideration and careful attention to detail. Appellants’ witness statements and ancillary documents were carefully selected for the Appellants’ Bundle.
Additionally, a Clinical Psychologist was instructed to examine the Appellants’ conduct tests and to compile a report on their mental well being. This led to findings of PTSD and high levels of stress and anxiety.
The solicitor who represented two of the Appellants in their criminal matter attended the hearing and gave evidence, which enabled the Judge to gain further insight of the finer details and exceptional circumstances relating to the clients’ criminal matter.
At the outset of the hearing, the Judge made an exceptional comment on how ‘beautifully’ the Appellants’ case had been prepared.
The outcome was a favourable determination for all three Appellants; all three appeals were allowed by the Judge. Moreover, there was no appeal from the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the decision.