Automated Summary
Key Facts
ZZ, an Algerian and French national, was excluded from the UK in 2005 on national security grounds. He had resided in the UK since the late 1970s, married a British citizen in 1990, and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2004. His exclusion followed a 2005 decision by the Home Secretary, later upheld after he attempted to re-enter in 2006. The appeal considered his 10+ years of lawful UK residence and family ties (eight UK-born children), but the court concluded imperative public security grounds justified his exclusion based on evidence in closed proceedings. The case addressed EU Directive 2004/38/EC's protections for EEA nationals and the balance between national security and family life.
Issues
- Whether the Secretary of State's decision to exclude ZZ from the United Kingdom on grounds of national security (imperative public security threats) was lawful under Regulation 21(5)(c) of the 2006 EEA Regulations, requiring a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to fundamental societal interests.
- Whether the procedural fairness requirements from the MB case (non-derogating control orders) must be applied to ZZ's exclusion proceedings, including disclosure of the case against him, despite national security exemptions under Article 30.2.
- Whether the principle of proportionality under Article 28 of the Directive required the court to balance ZZ's compelling family circumstances (wife, eight UK-born children) against the Secretary of State's imperative public security grounds for exclusion.
- The appropriate standard of proof for establishing past facts related to ZZ's conduct in national security cases—whether the criminal standard or balance of probabilities applies under Regulation 21(5)(c) and Article 27.2 of the Directive.
- Whether ZZ's 10+ years of lawful residence in the UK (interrupted by a 10-month absence) entitled him to the higher protection under Article 28.1 of the Directive, requiring expulsion only on imperative public security grounds.
Holdings
- The court applied the balance of probabilities standard to assess past facts related to national security, rather than requiring a criminal standard of proof, due to the nature of intelligence and national security considerations.
- The court determined that imperative grounds of public security, as established in closed material, outweighed the Appellant's compelling family circumstances (including eight UK-resident children and a spouse), justifying the Secretary of State's decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom.
Remedies
The appeal was dismissed, with the court determining that imperative grounds of public security justified the Secretary of State's decision to exclude ZZ from the United Kingdom despite compelling family circumstances.
Legal Principles
- The court determined that the balance of probabilities is the appropriate standard for proving past facts in national security cases, rather than the criminal standard. This aligns with the principle that specific acts already occurring should be proved to the civil standard of proof, as referenced in Rehman and European Commission v Spain.
- The principle of proportionality was central to the court's analysis. The decision to exclude ZZ was evaluated against his family circumstances, long residence in the UK, and the imperative grounds of public security. The court emphasized that expulsion measures must comply with proportionality, considering integration, family ties, and the nature of the threat.
Precedent Name
- G v Bulgaria
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB
- OO v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Gough v Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary
- European Commission v Spain
Cited Statute
- Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006
- Football Spectators Act 1989
- Prevention Of Terrorism Act 2005
Judge Name
- Senior Immigration Judge Jordan
- Mr J Ledlie
- Mr Justice Mitting
Passage Text
- We have in fact been able to, and have, determined some of the essential questions of fact in the closed judgment to the criminal standard.
- For reasons which are given in the open and closed Judgments, read together, we are satisfied that the imperative grounds of public security... justify the Secretary of State's decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom.
- Subject to the distress caused by their enforced separation, ZZ and his wife are happily married... The weight to be given to the family life of this family in the balancing exercise required by the principle of proportionality is very heavy.