Two conviction barristers who forfeited their fees, recently won an important case here, which could have far reaching implications for any attempts in the future to deport European nationals from the United Kingdom.
Belfast barrister, Fionnuala Connolly (pictured below) and London QC, Clive Lewis, brought the case of Siegnerella and Siegnette Flaneur before The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and fought it pro bono.
Ms Connolly discusses the importance of The Court of Appeal judgement below:
The deportation of foreign nationals convicted of criminal offences in the United Kingdom has generated significant public debate for some time. Often, prisoners challenge their deportation before the courts on the basis, for example, that expulsion would breach their right to family life in the United Kingdom.
What if an EU citizen is convicted of a criminal offence and faces deportation? The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland recently considered this issue and decided that there was no basis for the deportation of two Dutch sisters who had been convicted of criminal offences before Antrim Crown Court.
Siegnerella and Siegnette Flaneur were apprehended at Belfast International Airport in April 2008 in connection with the attempted importation into the United Kingdom of 136g of Cocaine. They pleaded guilty. Siegnette was sentenced by the Antrim Crown Court to three years imprisonment Siegnerella was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment. In his sentencing remarks, the Judge noted that the sisters were unlikely to reoffend because of their clear records, their assistance to the police and the fact that they had pleaded guilty to the offence.
The sisters served their sentence at Hydebank Prison in Northern Ireland. Prior to their release, they received decisions from the Home Secretary. They were to be deported on their release from custody because the Home Secretary considered that the sisters had committed a crime that was so serious, they represented a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to the public. Deportation, according to the Home Secretary, was justified.
The sisters brought a judicial review to challenge the deportation decisions.
On their behalf, it was argued before the High Court that although the sisters had committed a very serious criminal offence, they enjoyed a fundamental right to free movement within the European Union as EU citizens; there was no basis for their deportation under European law. It was argued that there was no evidence before the Home Secretary to support the conclusion that they presented a genuine present and sufficiently serious threat to the public.
In September 2010, the judicial review was dismissed. At that time, the sisters had returned to the Netherlands but because of the importance of the issues relating to their rights as EU citizens and their desire to clear their immigration record, they filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
On 27 October 2011, the Court of Appeal, by majority judgment (the Lord Chief Justice and Sir John Sheil), allowed the sisters’ appeal and quashed the deportation decisions. The Lord Chief Justice found that there was a “steady theme” in European law for “the need for a present threat evidenced by personal conduct of new and serious prejudice.” In other words, an EU citizen could not be deported solely because he had committed a serious offence. The Judge stated that the effect of the imprisonment on the women had been salutary on each of them and given their education and employment background, there were matters that needed to be assessed by the Home Secretary. The decisions had proceeded on a false basis and did not take into account certain matters.
Sir John Sheil found that neither of the sisters demonstrated a propensity to reoffend and he did not consider that there was a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to the public to in principle justify their deportation, “I do not consider that the conclusion reached by the Secretary of State in either case is proportionate or reasonable. I would quash the two decisions.”
This is a significant judgment for EU prisoners in Northern Ireland and indeed throughout the United Kingdom. It underlines that deportation decisions relating to EU prisoners must be justified under European law. This is because EU citizens enjoy highly protected rights which enable them to move freely within the European Union. Deportation restricts those rights and for that reason, an EU citizen such as Siegnerella or Siegnette may only be deported if they present a genuine present and sufficiently serious threat to the public. The individual’s personal conduct must be considered. It is not enough to rely on the seriousness of the offence. Siegnerella and Siegnette committed a serious criminal offence and served a custodial sentence. However, under European law, the deportation of both of the women was not justified.
The case may be important for the rest of the United Kingdom because the European law principles set out by the Court of Appeal with precision and clarity are applicable UK-wide in cases involving EU prisoners.
8 Comments
This verdict makes a joke of a Country’s sovereigntry. Selling drugs is a nasty crime and this verdict gives dealers and their runners an idea on how to get off deportation just like when they use under age children to do their dirty work.
This verdict makes a joke of a Country’s sovereigntry. Selling drugs is a nasty crime and this verdict gives dealers and their runners an idea on how to get off deportation just like when they use under age children to do their dirty work.
Well done to these two barristers for the job they done to give anti-Euro Union campaigners another tool in their arsenal. These two women may not have had no criminal record but it is disgraceful that a Country cannot expel undesirables.