The deportation of foreign nationals from the United Kingdom is a topic fraught with legal and moral complexities. Recent developments in case law, such as Secretary of State for the Home Department v William George [2024] EWCA Civ 1192, shed light on critical exceptions for European (EU) nationals, especially those with long-standing residency in the UK. This article explores the protective frameworks, procedural nuances, and judicial considerations shaping deportation law for European nationals.
The UK’s Deportation Landscape
Under UK law, deportation is generally permissible for conduct that incites “deep public revulsion,” even in the absence of a risk of reoffending. However, the case of William George underscores a significant carve-out for European nationals with over ten years of residence in the UK. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that such individuals can only be deported if their conduct represents an “actual risk to public security,” a notably higher threshold than the general public policy standard.
For a comprehensive understanding of deportation law, readers may find our previous articles—An Overview of Deportation Law, Deportation Appeals and Judicial Reviews, and Deportation and Detention—useful.
Enhanced Protections Under the 2016 Regulations
Although the UK’s departure from the European Union has reshaped immigration law, certain provisions under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (“2016 Regulations”) remain in force. These provisions offer enhanced protections to European nationals based on their length of residency:
- Residency Under Ten Years: Deportation is permissible “on grounds of public policy, public security or public health” (Regulation 23(6)).
- Residency Over Ten Years: Deportation is only permissible on “imperative grounds of public security” (Regulation 27(4)).
Decisions under the 2016 Regulations must also adhere to proportionality principles, focusing exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual. This conduct must present a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society” (Regulations 27(3), (5)(a), (c)).
Defining “Imperative Grounds”
The term “imperative grounds of public security” was clarified in LG (Italy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 190. It refers to an “actual risk to public security so compelling that it justifies the exceptional course of removing someone who has become integrated by many years’ residence in the host state.” The bar is deliberately high, ensuring that only individuals posing serious threats to public safety are subject to deportation.
Bouchereau and the Deep Public Revulsion Test
The “deep public revulsion” test originates from the European Court of Justice’s 1978 ruling in Bouchereau (Case 30/77), which held that criminal convictions alone cannot justify deportation. Instead, they serve as evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to public policy. While the Bouchereau principle applies broadly, its thresholds are particularly stringent for long-term European residents under UK law.
The 2018 decision in Robinson (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 85 reaffirmed that the threshold for deportation based on past conduct alone is exceptionally high for non-European nationals. However, such protections are further elevated for European nationals with over ten years of residence, as demonstrated in George.
The Case of William George
William George, a Belgian national who had lived in the UK since the age of 8, was convicted of manslaughter in 2017 and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. The Home Office issued a deportation order in 2018, which George successfully appealed at the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal. The tribunals concluded that George posed “absolutely no risk” of future offending, thereby meeting the “imperative grounds” standard.
The Home Office, however, challenged the decision in the Court of Appeal, arguing that George’s past conduct alone—a brutal gang-related killing—justified deportation under the public policy threshold. This position conflicted with the higher “public security” test applicable to European nationals with over ten years of residency. Furthermore, the Home Office had not raised this argument at earlier tribunal levels, creating procedural complications.
Procedural Nuances and Judicial Commentary
The Court of Appeal addressed whether it could consider points not previously raised or explicitly abandoned by the parties. Historically, such powers exist in refugee cases where the UK’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention are at stake (R (on the application of) Robinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 3090).
In George, the Court reluctantly entertained the Home Office’s arguments, deeming the Bouchereau point sufficiently important to merit consideration. However, Laing LJ sternly criticised the Home Office for its procedural failings, warning against interpreting this “exceptional indulgence” as precedent for future cases.
Judgment and Implications
The Court unequivocally rejected the Home Office’s argument, affirming that long-resident European nationals cannot be deported based solely on past conduct. Instead, deportation requires proof of an actual, ongoing risk to public security. This judgment underscores the heightened protections afforded to European nationals under UK law and the stringent thresholds the Home Office must meet.
For non-European nationals or European nationals with less than ten years of residency, the deportation calculus differs. Conduct inspiring deep public revulsion may still meet the Bouchereau standard, provided it overcomes the stringent evidentiary and proportionality requirements.
Reflections and Broader Context
This case is a stark reminder of the importance of procedural diligence and proportionality in deportation decisions. It also highlights the evolving interplay between domestic immigration law and residual European legal principles post-Brexit.
For individuals facing deportation, this judgment offers a critical avenue for legal challenge, particularly where residency length and personal conduct are mitigating factors. Practitioners must remain vigilant in identifying unraised legal arguments, as these can be decisive in ensuring justice.
As the UK continues to refine its immigration framework, the balance between public safety and individual rights will remain a contentious yet vital area of legal development. For further reading, see our article on the Supreme Court’s recent considerations of deportation thresholds: UK Supreme Court Considers Deportation (Again).
Get in touch: For a comprehensive understanding of your options or queries on UK immigration matters, contact GigaLegal Solicitors at 02074067654 or click here to book a no-obligation consultation with an immigration expert.