L’immigrato keniota può rimanere nel Regno Unito per una relazione “autentica” con la figlia a cui non parla

[The tribunal decision ](https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-000650)

“In reply, Ms Heybroek relied on her rule 24 response and argued that the Judge had been entitled to find that the relationship was subsisting on the basis that the Appellant sent £100 a month directly to his daughter’s bank account on an entirely voluntary basis. She prayed in aid the fact that the daughter had not (or at least had not been found to have) returned the money. Ms Heybroek argued that a relationship could be genuine and subsisting in the absence of contact but accepted that: the term “subsisting” was the antithesis of “broken down”, that the Judge’s position was therefore at least contradictory and that the Judge had not explained how the contradictory positions were reconciled in her view.”

**So because he sends £100 a month to her bank account that’s enough to consider it a “subsisting” relationship.**

.”11. A reference to whether a relationship is “subsisting” is a reference to the quality of the relationship, and requires an examination of whether the relationship not only is continuing but also whether it goes beyond a mere legal relationship. As Ms Haybroek accepted, a relationship which has “broken down” is the very antithesis of one which “subsists”.

12. Consequently, the Judge’s finding at [19] that the appellant’s relationship with his daughter had “broken down” is inconsistent with her finding later in that paragraph that it was “subsisting”. No attempt had been made to reconcile these contradictory findings. It follows that the Judge’s decision involved the making of an error of law.

13. That is not to say that it was not theoretically open to a judge to find that the Appellant’s parental relationship with his daughter was “genuine and subsisting”, just not after finding that the relationship had “broken down”, and only after a proper consideration of all of the circumstances.

14. In the case of Naz (subsisting marriage – standard of proof) Pakistan [[2012] UKUT 00040](https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2012-ukut-40) (IAC), it was found that a relationship had been proven to be subsisting on the basis of a combination of a husband’s visits to Pakistan, financial support and records of regular telephone contact.

15. The judge in this appeal was considering a relationship between a father and child, rather than husband and wife but it still provides support for our view that there was a need to consider the quality of the claimed parental relationship and not just the fact the legal relationship. A finding that a relationship is subsisting ought to be based on a holistic analysis of the circumstances as a whole and should always take account of the nature and extent of contact (in this case the fact that the relationship had broken down), financial support and any other relevant factors.

16. We therefore find that there is an error of law.”

> Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has announced plans to kerb judges’ powers to block deportations with new “common sense” rules to clarify how they interpret the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) article eight, which provides the right to a family life

So it has always been cases of judges interpreting the ECHR in very loose way, rather than the ECHR being wrong itself? As a lot of people have pointed out, rather than a need to rip up the ECHR.

Plan to be a second tribunal, in which I imagine the Home Office / a senior judge will determine the judge’s ruling was flawed, inconsistent and that the deportation order is valid.

His daughter, being born here, to a British national, will have UK citizenship anyway so she wouldn’t have to leave. And if he can’t be arsed to even maintain a relationship with her, then she wouldn’t be leaving the country with him or visiting him I imagine.

I think we are going to need to abolish ‘contempt of court’ given I think it is currently an entirely legitimate and obvious position that any sane person should hold.

So the Telegraph headline says that he can stay in the UK on the basis of a genuine relationship with a daughter he does not speak to even though the article says that the matter has been returned to a lower court for an error of law for making such a finding and has actually determined that a relationship cannot be both broken down and subsisting. Even when a Labour government challenges a decision and a higher tier judge agrees with them these biased rags feel the need to mislead as to what has happened via headlines.

Whoever is making these decisions is fucking stupid

ECHR needs to be replaced with something better because this whole thing turned into a massive joke.

This is fairly clear cut for me. If you are a visitor or reliant on our hospitality and you commit a crime against us or our people then you get ejected no questions asked.

I would expect that to happen to me in any other country I visited.

It’s not racist to happily accept people that want to contribute to society and reject ones who want to damage society that’s just common sense. The vast majority of people are decent