Johnson, 29, was only 4 years old when he first came to the UK. His father, who was from London, had an affair with his mother, who was Jamaican. Johnson’s parents never married. Afterwards, Johnson was brought to the country by his father. Johnson stayed with his father, his father’s wife, and half siblings. He had only seen his mother once, when he visited Jamaica at the age of 9. On March 1992, he was granted an indefinite leave to stay in the UK.
In August 2008, Johnson was convicted of manslaughter. Johnson killed a man by means of a wooden object which he used to hit and stab the victim. He claimed that he was acting in self defense, but his testimony was deemed false. The judge also described Johnson as a commercial dealer of class A drugs. Adding to his heavy criminal record, Johnson has a five year criminal record with serious offences dating back to 2003 when he was at the age of 18.
Following the court’s decision, the Home Office initiated their efforts to deport Johnson back to Jamaica on March 2011. Previously, Johnson and his father had never file for his citizenship before he was 18. Hence, the Home Office stated he was not a citizen and the evidence gave weight on their decision to deport Johnson and an obligation for the public good.
Justice Dingeman opposed the Home Office’s decision to deport Johnson, because the decision would violate Article 8 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Respectively, the two articles of the ECHR state his right to a private and family life and protection from discrimination.
Article 8 reads that everyone “has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” The article continues that there “shall be no interference by a public authority of the exercise of his right.” The only exception would be if he is a threat to national security, public safety, economic wellbeing, the health of others, and the protection of other people’s rights.
From article 8, it would seem reasonable to deport Johnson, since one can claim that he is a threat to public safety, but this is not necessarily so and Article 14 continues that this would be a form of discrimination. The article states that his enjoyment of human rights should not be interfered by discrimination based on sex, race, color, language, and “national or social origin.”
Dingeman applied the article to Johnson’s case, stating that Johnson’s deportation would not acknowledge his paternal link to his father, despite that he was born out of wedlock. His expulsion based on his national origin would be a form of discrimination as the decision would
not consider his paternal link as a basis for his citizenship and right to stay in the UK. Ultimately, his deportation would be established under human rights violations.
Nevertheless, the Home Office certified that Johnson’s human rights claim was “clearly unfounded.” Still, Dingeman squashed their decision and said that further consideration should be made.
Dingeman said that he would be open to an immigration tribunal in order to determine a final decision regarding Johnson’s human rights claim. This tribunal will serve to conclude that Johnson indeed should not be deported based on his paternal link. His relationship to his father should be used against his deportation process, according to Article 8 and 14. Dingeman states that this link and his right should be upheld.
The tribunal will make a close examination on Johnson’s rights and the weight of his paternal link as a means to stop his deportation. If successful, the appeal will invalidate the Home Office’s decline to cancel his deportation.