header-logo header-logo

10 February 2011
Issue: 7452 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Human rights

ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4, [2011] All ER (D) 02 (Feb)

When considering the removal of the parent of a British child from the UK, in making the proportionality assessment under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the best interests of the child had to be a primary consideration. That meant that they had to be considered first. They could, of course, be outweighed by the cumulative effect of other considerations. The “best interests of the child” broadly meant the well-being of the child. Specifically, it involved asking whether it was reasonable to expect the child to live in another country.

Relevant to that would be the level of the child’s integration in the UK and the length of absence from the other country; where and with whom the child was to live and the arrangements for looking after the child in the other country; and the strength of the child’s relationships with parents or other family members which would be severed if the child had to move away. Although nationality was not a “trump card”, it

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll