The Home Secretary, Theresa May and the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke are at war again, this time over the claim by Theresa May that an attempt to deport a Bolivian man failed because of his pet cat. According to the Daily Mail headline this morning, Ms May is correct. In fact, she is wrong – and so, once again, is the Daily Mail.
I reprint an excellent summing up of the facts by Adam Wagner of UK Human Rights Blog who lays out the case perfectly. One day the Daily Mail will tell the truth but I for one am not holding my breath. Adam’s article is reprinted below:
Having read the short, 6-page judgment dated 9 October 2008 by Immigration Judge JR Devittie, I will quote from it at length (apologies for any transcribing errors) and say the following.
First, on any reading, the judgment does not support the proposition the Home Secretary made in her speech: “The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat.”
For similar reasons, it does not support the Daily Mail’s headline from this morning: Truth about Tory catfight: Judge DID rule migrant’s pet was a reason he shouldn’t be deported. Back on to the legal naughty step, Daily Mail.
Secondly, this is not the final judgment in the case. I have already linked to and summarised that judgment in this post. Legally speaking, the fact that the judgment was superseded by a second appeal means that has very little, if any, relevance at all. An imperfect analogy would be retaking an exam – once you have the result of the second exam, it would be odd for you to refer to a previous, inferior grade.
The fact that, as I have explained, the judge in the second appeal rejected the Home Office’s appeal, and for entirely separate (to the human rights claim) reasons relating to the UK Border Agency’s failure to follow its own policy, means that the cat issue did not have to be considered and was therefore rendered wholly irrelevant to the final decision not to deport the man.
Thirdly, Judge Devittie does happen to mention Maya the cat. He even refers to some Canadian case law which emphasises, in unlawful animal killing cases, the
“increasing recognition of the significance that pets occupy in family life and of the potentially serious emotional consequences pet owners may suffer when some unhappy event terminates the bond they have with a pet… the Canadian courts have moved away from the legal view that animals are merely chattels.”
This is pretty uncontroversial. People love their pets. They consider them to be part of their family lives. If we were looking for evidence of judges taking account of “real” public attitudes, this could be one of them. It was not, however, the basis on which the man’s case was decided.
The reason the judge was utilising Canadian case law is that the Home Office had, in their consideration, made a sarcastic-sounding determination to the effect that
“Although you have a cat called Maya she is considered to be able to adapt to life abroad with her owners. Whilst the cat’s material quality of life in Bolivia may not be at the same standard as in the United Kingdom, this does not give rise to a right to remain in the United Kingdom.”
Fourthly, the key question is whether the Bolivian could not be deported “ because… he had a pet cat”. The answer in this ruling is here:
“11. In considering proportionality I must focus on the question whether the appellant’s removal would have sufficiently serious consequences to render his removal disproportionate having regard to the public interest in the removal of persons whose residence in the UK is unlawful.
12. I do not consider that it would be reasonable for the appellant’s partner to move to Bolivia to live with him. There are several considerations that justify this conclusion. The appellant’s counsel addressed these matters in his submissions. The most important perhaps is the condition of the appellant’s partner’s father. The evidence of this appellant’s partner and his siblings is that their father is in a condition that he is not expected to recover from. They stated that a family decision has been taken to give their father collective support as a family and that the support as a family and that the support that the appellant’s partner would give is an integral part of that effort. It would be distressing to the appellant’s partner’s [sic] if he were to have to leave the United Kingdom having regard to his father’s condition.
13. I have not lost sight of the respondent’s observations in respect of the quality of family life between the appellant and his unmarried partner. I find however that the evidence of the appellant’s friends and of his partner’s siblings is persuasive and telling. In my view it attests to the strong quality of the relationship between the appellant and his partner.
16. The evidence also shows that the appellant is well integrated into the larger family that his partner has with his siblings and parents. He attends family functions with his partner and is regarded as a member of the family.
17. The parties have lived together for about four years. The quality and strength of the relationship has been amply demonstrated. I have found it would not be reasonable to expect the appellant’s partner to return to live with him in Bolivia… I also take into account that the appellant appears to meet the requirements of policy DP3/96. In particular, his relationship and cohabitation predates enforcement action for two years.”
That was the reasoning behind the decision. Aside from the poor apostrophe use (which is probably the transcriber’s, not the judge’s), it sounds eminently sensible. As to the cat:
“… the evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya by the appellant and his partner reinforced my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that the appellant and his partner enjoy.”
So, finally, the most that can be said about Maya is that the evidence about the cat added a bit of colour to the thrust of the decision, in which the immigration judge quite rightly assessed the quality and strength of the man’s relationship with his partner according to evidence from the couple and their friends and relatives.
To conclude: this ruling is of little or no legal relevance. This is because when it was appealed, the more senior immigration judge reminded the Home Office counsel that irrespective of the article 8 ECHR arguments and the emphasis or otherwise on the cat, the appeal failed due to the Home Office’s own failure to follow its policy.
In any event, looking again at the judgment as the senior immigration judge would have if it had been necessary to substantively reconsider it, Judge Devittie rightly attached little or no relevance to the cat, which was at most a distraction from the main thrust of the evidence.
So the answer to the question of whether this is a case where an”illegal immigrant… cannot be deported because… he had a pet cat” appears to be no.
As to the Daily Mail’s “Judge DID rule migrant’s pet was a reason he shouldn’t be deported“, the reason he was not deported was because he successfully showed he had a relationship with another person lasting over two years, not that he had a pet cat.
Our thanks to UKHumanRightsBlog.com