R (on the application of Fitzroy George) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 28
Judgment Handed Down: 14th May 2014
The Supreme Court in this case were asked to determine the immigration status of a man who had been subject to a deportation order, but where the
immigration judge had decided that he could not actually be deported as it would breach his Article 8 ECHR rights to respect for family life. The relevant
issue was, given that the deportation order had to be revoked, does that mean that the previously enjoyed indefinite leave to remain is automatically
reinstated?
Fitzroy George, born in Grenada, came to the UK in 1995 and established a family; he has an ex-partner and they have a young child born in 2005 with whom
he has regular contact. Mr George had indefinite leave to remain but following a string of convictions including supply of heroin and cocaine, the Home
Secretary took the decision to serve a deportation order on him on the grounds that his continued presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good.
Deportation can be denied on a number of grounds. For example, where deportation would lead to a real risk that the deportee would be subjected to inhumane
and degrading treatment, the deportation would be unlawful for breaching his/her Article 3 ECHR rights. Of relevance to Mr George was the protection
offered by Article 8 based on his family ties to his daughter in the UK. The immigration judge, therefore, revoked the deportation order on Article 8
grounds. His indefinite leave to remain was not reinstated though and the Home Secretary granted temporary leave to remain with the power to impose
conditions on residence.
When Mr George sought judicial review to have his indefinite leave to remain reinstated as a direct result of the revocation of the deportation order, the
High Court dismissed his claim. In R (on the application of Fitzroy George) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1362, the
Court of Appeal upheld Mr George’s appeal at which point the Home Secretary appealed further to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in R (on the application of Fitzroy George) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 28, allowed the Home
Secretary’s appeal and ruled that indefinite leave to remain does not revive when a deportation order is revoked. The reasons for the judgment can be
summarised in three main points:
- Since the enactment of the Immigration Act 1971, all immigration rules subsequently made under the Act have expressly assumed that indefinite leave to remain does not revive where a deportation order is revoked. Lord Hughes referred to Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice in the United Kingdom
which record this same proposition without question in successive editions (paragraph 12).
- The revocation of a deportation order does not render the individual any less dangerous or adverse to the public good. Effectively, just because the individual cannot be deported does not mean that their presence is no longer adverse to the public good.
- The legal obstacle(s) to deportation may not be indefinite. For example, if deportation is not possible due to a risk of inhumane treatment or torture in the deportee’s home state, a regime change may occur whereby safe deportation would become possible. Family life circumstances may change also to
the extent that deportation in the future would not be in breach of any respect for family rights under Article 8.
Full case judgment for R (on the application of Fitzroy George) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 28 available at:
http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0250_Judgment.pdf
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of Fitzroy George) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 28. The three core legal propositions set out — that indefinite leave to remain does not automatically revive upon revocation of a deportation order, that revocation does not render the individual’s presence less adverse to the public good, and that the obstacle to deportation may be temporary — remain good law and have not been overturned.
Readers should note that the broader legislative and policy framework governing deportation has evolved since 2014. The Immigration Act 2014 and the Immigration Act 2016 introduced further changes to the statutory regime, including reforms to how Article 8 ECHR claims are assessed in deportation cases, now partly codified in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended). These provisions do not affect the specific legal principle confirmed in George regarding revival of indefinite leave to remain, but students researching the wider deportation framework should consult the current statutory text and up-to-date Immigration Rules. The link to the Supreme Court judgment in the article may no longer be active; the judgment is available via the Supreme Court’s current website and BAILII.
