Subject-Matter Index

Deportation

deportation of offender

balance to be struck between need to punish serious crime and deter others; and importance of relationship between offender to be deported and his family—interference with family lives of others also to be considered, such as impact of violent and degrading offences on complainant and her family: Pinto v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 83

balance to be struck between need to punish serious crime and deter others, and importance of relationship between offender to be deported and his family—more serious the offence(s), less likely that recommendation to deport disproportionate: Fernandes v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2014 GLR N [8]

correct approach to European Convention, art. 8 is to ask (a) is there interference with family life? (b) is it in accordance with law and in pursuit of a legitimate aim within art. 8(2)? and (c) if so, is interference proportionate, given balance between various factors?: Pinto v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 83

Fernandes v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2014 GLR N [8]

court to consider whether (a) offender’s continued presence to detriment of jurisdiction; (b) offence serious enough to merit deportation; (c) risk of re-offending—court itself to investigate potential human rights issues, e.g. disproportionate interference with right to family life, before making recommendation—fewer investigatory facilities available to Lieutenant-Governor considering recommendation and no right of appeal, as in United Kingdom—reasonable expectation that court’s recommendation will be acted upon with little further investigation: O’Dette v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 16

deportation in public interest unless exceptional circumstances—correct approach to ECHR, art. 8(2) is to ask (a) is there interference with family life? (b) is it in accordance with law and in pursuit of a legitimate aim within art. 8(2)? and (c) if so, is interference proportionate, given balance between various factors?: Fernandes v. Lieut. Gov. (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR 285

no leave to apply for judicial review of Lieutenant Governor’s decision to deport if decision within margin of discretion—mistake of fact in decision, e.g. erroneously stating offender committed additional offence, insufficient to require review in circumstances—Lieutenant Governor may place considerable weight on deterrence: Fernandes v. Lieut. Gov. (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR 285

proportionality of deportation as sanction not finally decided by court’s recommendation—remains to be considered by Lieutenant Governor when appellant to be released—balance of circumstances may change over years, though child’s best interests always to remain primary consideration: Pinto v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 83

proportionality of deportation as sanction not finally decided by court’s recommendation—remains to be considered by Lieutenant Governor when appellant to be released—balance of circumstances may change over years, though child’s best interests always to remain primary consideration—Lieutenant Governor may wish to consider success of prison treatment for drug addiction: Fernandes v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2014 GLR N [8]

recommendation for deportation not technically part of sentence—appeal against recommendation (purporting to be appeal against sentence) nonetheless to be decided according to usual criteria for sentence, i.e. whether manifestly excessive or wrong in principle—judicial review test of Wednesbury unreasonableness inappropriate: de Sousa v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2014 GLR 107

recommendation for deportation not technically part of sentence—nonetheless to be decided according to usual criteria for appeal against sentence, i.e. whether manifestly excessive or wrong in principle—“manifestly excessive” if fails to achieve proportionate balance between offender’s Convention rights and factors in favour of deportation; “wrong in principle” if fails to consider material factor supporting offender’s Convention rights, or unjustifiably considers significant factor in favour of deportation: Fernandes v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2014 GLR N [8]

test of proportionality imposed by ECHR, art. 8(2) requires fair balance between public interest and protection of individual’s fundamental rights—more demanding standard of decision-making than Wednesbury reasonableness—if no leave to apply on proportionality, Wednesbury arguments also fail: Fernandes v. Lieut. Gov. (Royal Ct.), 2016 GLR 285

when deportation of family member recommended, family relationship entitled to respect only if dependency present—less weight given to rights of offender and siblings under European Convention, art. 8, unless can show elements of dependence between them—mere presence of siblings in Guernsey insufficient: Fernandes v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2014 GLR N [8]

when deportation of parent recommended, family relationship entitled to respect only if dependency present—less weight given to rights of parent and adult child under European Convention, art. 8, unless they can show additional elements of dependence: de Sousa v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2014 GLR 107

where child affected by deportation, its best interests always of primary importance—court should obtain necessary facts but will exercise inquisitorial functions only rarely—heavy reliance on probation report but offender himself to give court relevant information about domestic circumstances and family life: Pinto v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 83

Website by