European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Michael BROWN v the United Kingdom - 10567/07 [2008] ECHR 136 (22 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/136.html
Cite as: [2008] ECHR 136
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
10567/07
by Michael BROWN
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2007,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Michael Brown, is a Jamaican national who was born in 1963 and now lives in Jamaica. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Willmott 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 applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 31 March 1994 and was given leave to enter as a visitor for six months. On 12 June 1995 he had a son by a British national. The couple married on 24 November 1995 and remain married. The applicant has a step-daughter by his wife. His step-daughter is twenty-two years of age.
On 24 June 1997 the applicant was given leave to remain until 20 June 1998 as the spouse of a British national. On 30 September 1998 he was granted indefinite leave to remain as a spouse. He applied for British citizenship on 6 February 2001. This application was refused on 29 January 2003 in light of his subsequent criminal conviction (see below).
On 27 May 2000 the applicant had a second son by a second woman. In 2002, this son contracted meningitis which left him badly brain damaged and in need of constant medical care.
On 4 July 2002 a Crown Court convicted the applicant and four co-accused of conspiracy to supply Class A controlled drugs (heroin). The applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
On 29 July 2006, the Secretary of State gave the applicant notice of his intention to make a deportation order against the applicant.
The applicant appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (the AIT).
In its determination of 4 December 2006, the AIT dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The applicant applied for reconsideration of the AIT’s decision. On 20 December 2006, the Senior Immigration Judge of the AIT refused the application.
The applicant claimed that he did not submit an application for statutory review to the High Court because he was not informed of the Senior Immigration Judge’s decision in time. He also claimed that when he obtained the decision, his legal representative advised him not to proceed further with the case and that an application for public funding was refused.
On 4 April 2007, the applicant requested an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to prevent his deportation.
On 5 April 2007 the President of the Chamber to which this application was allocated decided not to grant this request but decided under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court that notice of the application should be given to the Government of the United Kingdom. The application was formally communicated to the Government for their observations on the same day.
On 12 April 2007 the applicant was deported to Jamaica.
On 16 April 2007 the applicant’s wife sent a facsimile to the Court on behalf of her husband stating that he wished to maintain his application from Jamaica and providing contact details for him there.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision to deport him constituted an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private and family life.
THE LAW
On 20 April 2007, the Court wrote to the applicant at the address provided by his wife inviting him to send a signed letter confirming his wish to continue his application. The applicant did not respond.
A second letter was sent by registered post on 20 June 2007 in which the applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. That letter was returned to sender on 22 November 2007.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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 Josep Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President