Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 124

November 2009

Omojudi v. the United Kingdom - 1820/08

Judgment 24.11.2009 [Section IV]

Article 8

Expulsion

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Deportation to Nigeria despite strong family ties and long residence in the United Kingdom: violation

Facts – The applicant, a Nigerian national, came to live in the United Kingdom in 1982, at the age of twenty-two. He got married and had three children, all of whom were British citizens. His oldest child had a daughter, who at the time of the European Court’s judgment was two years old. In 1989 the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for theft and conspiracy to defraud. In 2005 he was nonetheless granted indefinite leave to remain. In 2006 the applicant was convicted of sexual assault for touching a woman’s breast without her consent and sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge did not recommend him for deportation. However, some months later the Secretary of State for the Home Department issued a deportation order claiming that it was necessary for the prevention of disorder and crime and the protection of health and morals. He was deported to Nigeria in April 2008.

Law – Article 8: In the Court’s view the only relevant offence to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the deportation sanction imposed on the applicant was that committed after he had been granted indefinite leave to remain in 2005, since at that time the Secretary of State for the Home Department must have been fully aware of the applicant’s offending history. The applicant was clearly not a habitual offender nor was there any evidence of a pattern of sexual offending. Even though sexual assault was undoubtedly a serious offence, given the relatively mild sentence imposed on the applicant, his offence was not at the most serious end of the spectrum of sexual offences. Furthermore, the Court attached considerable importance to the solidity of the applicant’s family ties in the United Kingdom and the difficulties his family would face if they were to return to Nigeria. All three of the applicant’s children had always lived in the family home and the family had continuously lived as one unit until the applicant’s deportation. His two youngest children were born in the United Kingdom, were not of an adaptable age and would likely encounter significant difficulties if they were to relocate to Nigeria. For the oldest son it would be virtually impossible to return to Nigeria as he had a two-year-old daughter, who was also born in the United Kingdom. Given the strength of the applicant’s family ties to the United Kingdom, his length of residence and the difficulties his children would face if they were to move to Nigeria, the Court found that the applicant’s deportation had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes