BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> J.B.M. and another v the United Kingdom - 44048/07 [2011] ECHR 119 (11 January 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/119.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 119 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
44048/07
by J.B.M. and another
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
Vincent
A. de Gaetano, judges
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 October 2007,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Mr Japheri-Babu Murisho, is a Ugandan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Doncaster. The second applicant, his daughter, is a British citizen who was born on 2 January 1996. They are represented before the Court by Mrs N. Mole, a lawyer practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The first applicant entered the United Kingdom legally in or around 1989 and was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in 2000. During his time in the United Kingdom he had four children with four different women. One of those children was the second applicant. The second applicant’s mother was a recovering drug addict with mental health problems and in 2005 the second applicant was taken into local authority care after her mother was committed to a psychiatric hospital. She was first placed in temporary foster care but was later placed with her paternal grandmother with a view to her eventually being placed with the first applicant.
However, the first applicant had a significant criminal record and in 2002 he was sentenced to over four years’ imprisonment following a conviction for the importation of cocaine. On 8 May 2007 he was issued with a Notice of Intention to Deport. He appealed against that decision to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on Article 8 grounds. He then requested an adjournment of the appeal pending conclusion of the care proceedings relating to the second applicant. The Tribunal refused the application for an adjournment and went on to dismiss the first applicant’s appeal. On 18 September 2007 the Tribunal refused the first applicant’s request for an order for reconsideration and he was deported to Uganda on 8 November 2007.
Following the first applicant’s deportation the second applicant’s paternal grandmother was unable to cope and she is now living in a children’s home.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the first applicant’s deportation violated their right to respect for their family and private lives.
THE LAW
By letter dated 5 February 2010 the applicants’ representative notified the Court that the first applicant had given her oral instructions to the effect that he wished to withdraw his application to the Court. She indicated that she was seeking written instructions and would notify the Court immediately upon their receipt.
By letter dated 1 December 2010 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that she had lost all contact with the first applicant. Consequently, she asked the Court to withdraw the application from its list.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Ramzy v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25424/05, § 64, 20 July 2010). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş Aracı Lech
Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President