IMMIGRATION

Deportation order following conviction of offence involving class A drugs - interference with convention right to family life - secretary of state required to strike fair balance between public good and offender's fundamental rightsR (Samaroo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Thorpe and Dyson LJJ): 17 July 2001 The applicant, who had been convicted of being knowingly concerned with the importation of a class A drug, was the subject of a deportation order.He sought judicial review of the secretary of state's decision to make the order on the grounds that it involved an interference with his right to family life under article 8(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and that such interference was not justified under article 8(2).

Mr Justice Thomas refused the application.

The applicant appealed.

Nicholas Blake QC and Osama Daneshyar (instructed by T Osmani & Co) for the applicant.

John Howell QC and Steven Kovats (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the secretary of state.Held, dismissing the appeal, that, where the legitimate aim of prevention of crime and disorder could not be achieved by alternative means less interfering with a person's fundamental rights than an order for deportation, the decision-maker, when deciding whether to interfere with those rights, had to strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim and the affected person's fundamental rights; that the court would interfere with the weight accorded to each factor if, despite an allowance for the appropriate margin of discretion, it concluded that the weight accorded was unfair and unreasonable, and in that respect the level of scrutiny was more intense that given to a decision subject to review on traditional Wednesbury grounds; but that, in the instant case, the secretary of state had achieved a fair balance and his decision was justified.