He observes that the complexity in this area is due to the Government's attempt to restrict rights, in particular the right to private and family life, without repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government have not been able to repeal the Act as they have never been confident there would be a majority in Parliament in favour of doing so. The Government’s solution, of providing directions to judges through legislation, has been descried as a “constitutional innovation” and has led to a situation which was recently been described by the Supreme Court as “profoundly unsatisfactory”.
The post examines the background to the introduction of the statutory considerations through the Immigration Act 2014 and reviews the case law applicable to each consideration. The considerations relate to a migrant’s English language ability, financial circumstances, immigration status, and parental relationship with any children who are British citizens or who have lived in the UK for 7 years.
The post concludes by noting that, after Brexit, the Government are likely to turn their attention to repeal of the Human Rights Act again (prior to Brexit this was a prominent policy aim of the Conservative Party however it has been side-lined recently due to Brexit). However, much like Brexit, once repeal of the Act becomes a reality, and the loss of rights it would entail for all UK residents is confronted, people may begin to question whether it is such a good idea after all.
The full post can be read here - https://www.freemovement.org.uk/statutory-considerations-in-human-rights-appeals/
"A market leader for specialist immigration and human rights law in Scotland’, McGill & Co’s ‘excellent and prompt’ team assists private clients with all aspects of immigration and nationality law, including business, investor and entrepreneur migration, sponsorship licensing, family migration, and asylum and refugee work."