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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll