(Court of Appeal; Sir Mark Potter P, Wilson and Moses LJJ; 21 December 2007)
The immigration judge had erred in his application of the questions relating to the impact of a removal on the applicant's right to respect for private or family life posed in R (Razgar) v Home Secretary  2 AC 368. The threshold for an engagement of Art 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights was not an especially high one. The fact that an interference with Art 8 rights was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society were not dispositive, otherwise no claimant would ever be able to claim that interference with his Art 8(1) rights was disproportionate. The judge had also applied the wrong test of exceptionality; the correct test had been identified in AG (Eritrea) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 407.